SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Souris Valley Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. Ranking #67 out of 72 nursing homes in North Dakota, they are in the bottom half of all facilities in the state. The trend shows improvement, with issues decreasing from 13 in 2024 to 4 in 2025, which is a positive sign. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 56%, slightly above the state average of 48%, suggesting that while staff retention is decent, there is still room for improvement. However, the facility has faced serious compliance issues, including critical incidents where proper infection control was not followed, risking the spread of infections, and a failure to provide adequate supervision during resident transfers, leading to potential falls and injuries. Additionally, the center has incurred $82,312 in fines, which is concerning and indicates repeated compliance problems.
- Trust Score
- F
- In North Dakota
- #67/72
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $82,312 in fines. Higher than 82% of North Dakota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 46 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for North Dakota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average 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
Below North Dakota average (3.1)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near North Dakota avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
8 points above North Dakota average of 48%
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
4 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #18) with Multi-Resistant Staph...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care in a manner that maintained, enhanced, and respected resident's dig...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual (Version 1....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of the facility reported incident (FRI), review of the facility policy, and staff in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the facility reported incident investigation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensu...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
12 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide care and services to co...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 F0557
(Tag F0557)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to promote care in a manner that...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 notify the resident's physician o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, record review, review of manufacturer's instructions for use, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure staff followed standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff provide...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status or 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #35) with weig...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
THIS IS A REPEAT DEFICIENCY FROM THE SURVEY COMPLETED ON 05/25/23
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from unn...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 for 3 of 6 sampled residents (Resident#17, #35 and #19...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to assess each resident's pneumococcal status and provide education to residents and/or their legal represen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual (Version 1....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan to reflect the resident's current status for 5 of 14 sample...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of Medicare Part A letters/notices, record review, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** THIS IS A REPEAT DEFICIENCY FROM THE STANDARD SURVEY ON 02/10/22.
Based on record review, review of professional reference, and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from unnecessary psychotropic medications for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to follow standards of infection control for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Residents #5) observed during cares. Fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, information provided by the complainant, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe, clean,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $82,312 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $82,312 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in North Dakota. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Souris Valley's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within North Dakota, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Souris Valley Staffed?
CMS rates SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the North Dakota average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Souris Valley?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 18 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Souris Valley?
SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER 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 50 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in VELVA, North Dakota.
How Does Souris Valley Compare to Other North Dakota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Dakota, SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Souris Valley?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Souris Valley Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in North Dakota. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Souris Valley Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the North Dakota average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Souris Valley Ever Fined?
SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER has been fined $82,312 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the North Dakota average of $33,902. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Souris Valley on Any Federal Watch List?
SOURIS VALLEY CARE CENTER 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.