STRASBURG NURSING HOME

409 S 3RD ST, STRASBURG, ND 58573 (701) 336-2651
Non profit - Corporation 38 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#31 of 72 in ND
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: January 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Strasburg Nursing Home has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for care, scoring solidly above average. It ranks #31 out of 72 facilities in North Dakota, placing it in the top half, and is the only option in Emmons County. The facility's trend is stable, with 6 issues reported in both 2024 and 2025, which suggests consistent performance. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5-star rating and 54% turnover, which is average compared to the state; this means many staff members stay long enough to build relationships with residents. There have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign. However, some concerns have been noted, such as failing to investigate a resident's report of missing money and not following proper insulin administration procedures, which could potentially impact resident safety. Overall, while the home has strengths, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering care.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In North Dakota
#31/72
Top 43%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
6 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Dakota facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 67 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of North Dakota nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 6 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near North Dakota avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record

Jan 2025 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility policy, and resident and family interviews, the facility failed to ensure an alleged ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility policy, and resident and family interviews, the facility failed to ensure an alleged violation of misappropriation of resident property was reported within 24 hours to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #20) with a report of missing money. Failure to report the alleged violation to the SSA placed Resident #20 and other residents at risk for misappropriation of property. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, Exploitation &/or Misappropriation of Resident Property occurred on 01/23/25. This policy, dated October 2024, stated, . It is the policy of the facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by taking appropriate steps to prevent . misappropriation of resident property, regardless of the resident's mental or physical condition. Alleged violations will be reported to . the State Survey & Certification Agency, in accordance with state law through established procedures. Review of Resident #20's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified intact cognition. During an interview on 01/21/25 at 3:43 p.m., Resident #20 stated, I had a check for $100.00 from my wife that she had given to me for a Christmas gift. Last Friday I gave the check to my daughter to take to the bank and cash it for me. My daughter brought the money back to me in a bank envelope and it was five twenties. Then Sunday when I went to take a shower I took the envelope with the money in it and this notepad out of my shirt pocket and put it in this drawer. When I came back to my room after my shower the notepad was in the drawer, but the envelope with the money in was not there. So I told the nurse I was missing my money. When asked if the facility assisted the resident to look for his money, he stated, Yes, I told them they could look all they wanted but I already did and didn't find it. And they couldn't find it either. Review of Resident #20's progress notes included the following: * 1/19/25 at 1:16 p.m. Has been talking about an envelope with 100 dollars that he received the past several days, and lost the money. Nurse phoned [Resident #20's daughter] whom will talk to the resident (nothing mentioned about loosing [sic] money up until today), and then call the nurse back. * 1/19/25 at 2:12 p.m. [Resident #20's daughter] called back, res. [resident] received the 100 dollars on 1-17 [January 17th, 2025]. Res. had told [Resident #20's daughter] he misplaced the money. * 1/19/25 at 5:29 p.m. Res. talked with the bathing CNA [certified nurse aide] from this morning, she explained to resident that he didn't have his shirt or vest on, then res. said 'I misplaced the money in a drawer' . * 1/21/25 at 10:19 a.m. He said he is missing $100.00, said that 'someone had sticky fingers on his bath day, Monday' . During an interview on 01/23/25 at 9:33 a.m., an administrative nurse (#1) verified she had not reported Resident #20's missing money to the SSA.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and staff, resident and family interviews, the facility failed to initiate an investigati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and staff, resident and family interviews, the facility failed to initiate an investigation of an alleged violation of misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #20) with reports of missing money. Failure to investigate the alleged misappropriation of the resident's property and ensure all residents are protected placed them at risk for emotional and mental distress. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Lost & Missing Items occurred on 01/23/25. This policy, dated January 2025, stated, . This facility maintains a safe and secure environment to minimize lost and/or missing items. When a resident reports a missing item a. Staff will complete the Missing Item form b. Staff will complete a search of the resident's room as well as nearby rooms c. Social Service staff will inform department heads at morning stand up d. A record of areas searched will be kept . Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, Exploitation &/or Misappropriation of Resident Property occurred on 01/23/25. This policy, dated October 2024, stated, . It is the policy of the facility . to prevent . misappropriation of resident property, regardless of the resident's mental or physical condition. The facility will thoroughly investigate all allegations . The facility will immediately engage in efforts to identify, intervene and correct situations in which . misappropriation of resident property have occurred or are more likely to occur. Review of Resident #20's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified intact cognition. During an interview on 01/21/25 at 3:43 p.m., Resident #20 stated, I had a check for $100.00 from my wife that she had given to me for a Christmas gift. Last Friday I gave the check to my daughter to take to the bank and cash it for me. My daughter brought the money back to me in a bank envelope and it was five twenties. Then Sunday when I went to take a shower I took the envelope with the money in it and this notepad out of my shirt pocket and put it in this drawer. When I came back to my room after my shower the notepad was in the drawer, but the envelope with the money in was not there. So I told the nurse I was missing my money. When asked if the facility assisted the resident with looking for his money, he stated, Yes, I told them they could look all they wanted but I already did and didn't find it. And they couldn't find it either. Review of Resident #20's progress notes included the following: * 1/19/25 at 1:16 p.m. Has been talking about an envelope with 100 dollars that he received the past several days,and [sic] lost the money. Nurse phoned [Resident #20's daughter] whom [sic] will talk to the resident (nothing mentioned about loosing [sic] money up until today), and then call the nurse back. * 1/19/25 at 2:12 p.m. [Resident #20's daughter] called back, res. [resident] received the 100 dollars on 1-17 [January 17th, 2025]. Res. had told [Resident #20's daughter] he misplaced the money. * 1/19/25 at 5:29 p.m. Res. talked with the bathing CNA [certified nurse aide] from this morning, she explained to resident that he didn't have his shirt or vest on, then res. said 'I misplaced the money in a drawer'. * 1/21/25 at 10:19 a.m. He said he is missing $100.00, said that 'someone had sticky fingers on his bath day, Monday.' . During an interview on 01/22/25 at 4:23 p.m., Resident #20's daughter, (Family member A), stated, He [Resident #20] might misplace things like we all do for a short time and then find them. It is not normal behavior for my dad to say he is missing things which he is not, and he has a very good mind. During an interview on 01/22/25 at 4:53 p.m., Resident #20's daughter, (Family member B), stated, Last Friday I took the check to the bank for my dad per his request and cashed it. I then took the bank envelope with five twenty dollar bills to me dad. He [Resident #20] didn't go anywhere to spend the money so where did it go? During an interview on 01/23/25 at 9:33 a.m., an administrative nurse (#1) verified the facility had not started and/or completed an investigation for Resident #20's missing money.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #9 and #12) observed for insulin p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #9 and #12) observed for insulin preparation and administration. Failure to prime insulin pens correctly may result in residents receiving an inaccurate dose. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Insulin Pens occurred on 01/22/25. This policy, dated 01/06/25, stated, . 5. Prime the pen, a. Dial 2 units by turning the dose selector. b. Remove the cover from the needle and hold the pen with needle pointed upward. - Observation on 01/21/25 at 5:23 p.m. showed a nurse (#3) prepared Resident #12's insulin pen for administration. The nurse failed to prime the insulin pen upward. - Observation on 01/22/25 at 7:59 a.m. showed a nurse (#4) prepared Resident #9's insulin pen for administration. The nurse failed to prime the insulin pen upward. During an interview the morning of 01/23/25, an administrative staff member (#1) stated she expected staff to follow the policy for priming insulin pens.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received the necessary service to maintain personal hygiene for 1 of 8 samp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received the necessary service to maintain personal hygiene for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident #18) who required staff assistance for personal hygiene. Failure to assist residents who cannot perform personal hygiene independently may result in poor hygiene, skin issues, and decreased self-esteem. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) occurred on 01/23/25. This policy, dated October 2024, stated, . It is the policy of the facility to provide ADL care to residents as needed to ensure all ADL needs are met are on a daily basis. Review of Resident #18's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The current care plan stated, . The resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t [related to] dementia PERSONAL HYGIENE: she needs set up help and verbal reminders for personal hygiene. Observation on 01/22/25 at 8:17 a.m. showed a nurse (#3) assisted Resident #18 to pick out her clothing, placed the clothing in the bathroom, and asked, Do you want me to help you? The resident answered, yes, and without providing assistance or verbal reminders for personal hygiene, the nurse assisted the resident to remove her pajamas and put on new clothing. After exiting the room, when asked if the resident needs assistance with personal hygiene, the nurse (#3) stated, When she will allow us to help her. During an interview on 01/23/25 at 9:33 a.m., an administrative nurse (#1) stated she expected the nurse (#3) to assist Resident #18 with personal hygiene while she assisted the resident with dressing.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #16) with an indwelling urinar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #16) with an indwelling urinary catheter. Failure to empty Resident #16's catheter bag may result in urinary tract infections (UTIs), unnecessary discomfort, and urinary retention and/or obstruction. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Catheter Care occurred on 01/23/25. This policy, dated October 2024, stated, . Empty drainage bag at the end of each shift [i.e., three times per day] . Review of Resident #16's medical record occurred on all days of survey. Diagnoses included obstructive and reflux uropathy (blockage that hinders urinary flow), benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate that can cause blockage of urine flow from the bladder as well as urinary tract and kidney problems), and history of UTIs. The care plan stated, . The resident has an indwelling suprapubic catheter related to urinary obstruction. Observations on 01/21/25 of Resident #16 showed the following: * 4:43 p.m. Approximately 1200 cubic centimeters (cc) of urine in the catheter bag. The resident stated, It feels like it might explode. * 5:50 p.m. Approximately 1300 cc of urine in the catheter bag. Resident #16's output record showed staff emptied the catheter bag on 01/21/25 at 7:53 p.m., and it contained 2000 cc of urine. The medical record also showed four days from January 6th to January 20th, 2025, staff emptied the resident's catheter bag twice in a 24-hour period. During an interview on 01/23/25 at 9.33 a.m., an administrative staff (#1) confirmed staff should have emptied Resident #16's catheter before 8:00 p.m. on January 21st, and stated she expected certified nurse assistants to empty catheter bags at least once per eight-hour shift.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control and prevention for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #9) observed during cares. Failure to practice infection control standards related to enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and hand hygiene has the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions occurred on 01/22/25. This policy, dated 04/01/24, stated, . It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions to prevent the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) during high-contact activities for residents with chronic wound or indwelling medical devices, even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a MDRO. 'Enhanced Barrier Precautions'. refers to the use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities for residents. at increased risk of MDRO acquisition (e.g., .indwelling medical devices). urinary catheters .) . High-Contact Resident Care Activities may include: Transferring. Review of the facility's policy titled Hand Hygiene occurred on 01/21/25. This policy, dated 11/20/24, stated, . Each staff member is responsible to practice hand hygiene. The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene. perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves and immediately after removing gloves. - Review of Resident #9's medical record occurred on all days of survey. A current physician's order stated, Enhanced Barrier Precautions every shift for foley catheter. Observations of Resident #9 showed the following: * 01/21/25 at 5:01 p.m., Resident #9 had a catheter drain bag. Two certified nurse aides (CNA) (#6 and #7) transferred Resident #9 from the recliner to the wheelchair. The CNA (#6) moved the catheter bag to the wheelchair. The CNAs (#6 and #7) failed to don a gown or gloves before they transferred Resident #9. * 01/22/25 at 9:13 a.m., Two CNAs (#5 and #8) failed to don a gown or gloves prior to transferring the resident from the toilet to the wheelchair. * 01/22/25 at 4:03 p.m., a CNA (#6) donned a gown and gloves and entered the bathroom where Resident #9 sat on the toilet. The CNA (#6) emptied Resident #9's catheter drainage bag, removed her gloves, and without performing hand hygiene, donned new gloves, raised Resident #9 to a standing position with a mechanical stand lift, and performed bowel movement cares. The CNA removed her gloves, and without performing hand hygiene, donned new gloves, adjusted the resident brief and clothes, and transferred the resident to the recliner. The CNA (#6) removed her right glove, and without performing hand hygiene, applied Resident #9's oxygen cannula. During an interview on 01/23/25 at 11:35 a.m., an administrative nurse (#1) confirmed the facility failed to educate staff on the use of gown and gloves for transfers of residents in enhanced barrier precautions, and stated she expected staff to perform hand hygiene after removing gloves and before putting on new gloves or touching other surfaces per policy.
Jan 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #12) with an indwelling catheter in a manner and environment that m...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #12) with an indwelling catheter in a manner and environment that maintained, enhanced, and respected the resident's dignity. Failure to cover the resident's catheter drainage bag does not preserve the resident's personal dignity or enhance their quality of life. Findings include: The facility failed to provide a policy for dignity and covering of a catheter drainage bag when requested. Observations of Resident #12 showed the following: * 01/02/24 at 6:00 p.m., Resident returned from the dining room with the catheter drainage bag (containing urine) uncovered and hanging under the wheelchair. * 01/03/24 at 8:54 a.m., Resident returned from the dining room with the catheter drainage bag (containing urine) uncovered and hanging under the wheelchair. * 01/03/24 at 11:48 a.m., Resident sat in the dining room with the catheter draining bag (containing urine) uncovered. During an interview the afternoon of 01/04/23 at 2:00 p.m., an administrative nurse (#1) confirmed she expected urine drainage bags be covered.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the resident's representative and/or the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman a written notice of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the resident's representative and/or the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman a written notice of transfer for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #14) with a recent hospital transfer. Failure to provide a written copy of the transfer notice does not allow the resident and/or their representative to make an informed decision regarding their rights or inform the Ombudsman of the transfer. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Transfer or Discharge occurred on 01/04/24. This policy, dated 10/07/21, stated, . Notice before transfer. Before the facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility will: Notify the resident and the resident's representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the transfer or discharge in writing and in a language and manner the resident understands and will send a copy of the notified to the Long term Care Ombudsman. Review of Resident #14's medical record occurred on all days of survey and identified a hospital transfer on 12/11/23. The resident's medical record lacked evidence the facility provided a transfer notice to the resident's representative, and/or the ombudsman. During an interview the afternoon of 01/04/24, an administrative staff member (#1) verified the facility did not provide a transfer notice to Resident #14's representative or to the ombudsman.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice upon tr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice upon transfer to the hospital for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #14). Failure to provide a bed hold notice does not allow residents or their legal representatives to make informed choices regarding their readmission rights. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Bed Hold occurred on 01/04/24. This policy, dated 08/01/23, stated, It is the policy of the facility to hold a bed for a resident if they or their representative prefer the bed be held when that resident is transferred to an acute setting . Review of Resident #14's medical record occurred on all days of survey and identified a transfer to the hospital on [DATE]. The record lacked evidence the facility discussed a bed hold with the resident and/or the family/legal representative or provided a bed hold notice. During an interview the afternoon of 01/04/24, an administrative staff member (#1) confirmed the facility failed to provide the bed hold notice.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manua...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual (Version 1.17), and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #7). Failure to accurately complete the MDS does not allow each resident's assessment to reflect their current status/needs and may affect the accurate development of a comprehensive care plan and the care provided to the residents. Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, revised October 2019, page J-23 stated, . Current Tobacco Use . Steps for Assessment. Ask the resident if he or she used tobacco in any form during the 7-day look-back period. If the resident states that he or she used tobacco in some from during the 7-day look-back period code 1, yes. Review of Resident #7's medical record occurred on all days of survey. The Annual MDS dated [DATE], identified the facility coded 'no for tobacco use. The care plan stated, . The resident has a need for meaningful activities r/t [related to] psychosocial health. The resident smokes with supervision . A progress note dated 05/25/23 at 7:52 a.m., stated, Annual . MDS completed . Resident continues to choose to smoke cigarettes and requires supervision and a smoking apron when smoking. During an interview on 01/04/24 at 2:21 p.m., an administrative staff member (#1) confirmed staff failed to code the MDS correctly.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient supervision and/or assistive devices for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient supervision and/or assistive devices for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #26) observed during a transfer. Failure to provide a gait belt during transfers placed the resident at risk for accidents, falls, or injuries. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Gait Belt Use occurred on 01/04/24. This policy, dated 12/06/23, stated,. The facility will provide a gait belt for each resident who is unable to transfer or ambulate without extensive assistance. Do not lift the resident under their arms or by the waistband of their pants during transfer. Review of Resident #26's medical record occurred on all days of survey and included diagnoses of dementia. The current care plan stated, TRANSFER: The resident transfers with assist of one. He will sometimes transfer per self. He does not use his walker. Provide repeated cues encouraging him wait for assistance . Review of Resident 26's activities of daily living charting, dated January 2 and 3, 2024 identified extensive assist to total dependence with transfers. Observation on 01/03/24 at 11:18 a.m., showed a certified nurse aide (CNA) (#3) assisted Resident #26 to stand by grabbing his waist band and lifting under the arm. Observation on 01/03/24 at 1:34 p.m., showed two CNAs (#3 and #4) assisted Resident #26 to stand by grabbing his waist band and lifting under his arm. The CNA (#3) assisted Resident #26 with ambulation by holding on to his shirt and waist band. After toileting, the CNA (#3) assisted the resident from the toilet by lifting under the arm. Facility staff failed to use a gait belt during the transfer with Resident #26.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure safe and secure storage of medications during 1 of 2 observations of insulin administration. Failure...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure safe and secure storage of medications during 1 of 2 observations of insulin administration. Failure to store insulin pens securely may result in unauthorized access to the medication. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Insulin Pens occurred on 12/04/23. This policy, reviewed 12/06/23, stated after administration to, . Remove the needle from the pen and discard appropriately . Place cap back on the pen and return to storage drawer in med [medication] cart. Observation on 01/03/24 at 11:24 a.m. showed a medication aide (MA) (#2) administered insulin to Resident #12. After completion of administration, the MA laid the insulin pen with the retractable needle in place on the resident's bedside table. The MA then assisted the resident to the dining room. Observation at 11:43 a.m. showed housekeeping staff cleaning the resident's room and the insulin pen on the resident's bedside table. Observation at 1:00 p.m. showed the insulin pen remained on the resident's beside table and the surveyor then gave the pen to the MA (#2) for safe storage. The MA (#2) failed to discard the insulin pen needle and properly store the insulin pen after Resident #12's insulin administered. During an interview the afternoon of 12/04/23, an administrative nurse (#1) confirmed insulin pens are expected to be returned to the medication cart after insulin is administered.
Dec 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure all alleged incidents involving possible injury were reported immediately to the State Survey Age...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure all alleged incidents involving possible injury were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #4) with an unwitnessed fall. Failure to immediately report alleged incidents to the State Agency placed Resident #4 and other residents at risk for possible abuse and/or further injury. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, Exploitation &/or Misappropriation of Resident Property occurred on 12/21/22. This policy, dated October 2022, stated, . Injuries of unknown source: An injury should be classified as an injury of unknown source . a. The source of the injuring [sic] was not observed . Alleged violations will be reported to other officials, including the State Survey & Certification Agency, in accordance with state law . Resident #4 nurses' notes stated the following: 06/13/22 at 10:19 a.m., CNA [certified nursing assistant] was walking past Res [resident] room and she found [Resident #4] sitting on the floor in front of her recliner with her legs out front turned inward with pain in her Rt [right] hip/knee area. she was left on the floor and ambulance was called . 06/13/22 at 1:53 p.m., . res has small FX [fracture] in ball of her Lt) [left] hip. 06/13/22 at 08:05 p.m., . will be transferred to [name of town] for MRI [magnetic resonance imaging] and evaluation . has small fracture to left hip and to left elbow. 06/15/22 at 09:12 a.m., . received call from [name of facility] that MRI indicated there were no fractures present in elbow or hip as had been previously reported. Resident will be returning . The facility failed to provide evidence of a report or investigation of the incident. During interview on 12/21/22 at 5:21 p.m., two administrative staff members (#1 and #2) confirmed they lacked evidence the facility reported the incident to the SSA and they should have reported this incident.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Dakota facilities.
Concerns
  • • 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Strasburg's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns STRASBURG NURSING HOME an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within North Dakota, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Strasburg Staffed?

CMS rates STRASBURG NURSING HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the North Dakota average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Strasburg?

State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at STRASBURG NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Strasburg?

STRASBURG NURSING HOME is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 38 certified beds and approximately 27 residents (about 71% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STRASBURG, North Dakota.

How Does Strasburg Compare to Other North Dakota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Dakota, STRASBURG NURSING HOME's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Strasburg?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Strasburg Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, STRASBURG NURSING HOME has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in North Dakota. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Strasburg Stick Around?

STRASBURG NURSING HOME has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 7 percentage points above the North Dakota average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Strasburg Ever Fined?

STRASBURG NURSING HOME has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Strasburg on Any Federal Watch List?

STRASBURG NURSING HOME is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.

STRASBURG NURSING HOME

409 S 3RD ST, STRASBURG, ND 58573 | (701) 336-2651

B
Trust Grade (75/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
13
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star staffing

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025