Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
A standard survey is most likely before around December 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Hansford Manor during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident's MDS assessment inaccurately recorded insulin injections, despite no orders or records supporting this. The resident, with conditions including type 2 diabetes, was actually on Ozempic. Staff interviews revealed the error was a typographical mistake by the MDS Coordinator, highlighting the importance of accurate documentation.
The facility failed to include bed rail use in the care plans of two residents with severe cognitive impairment and mobility issues. Despite orders for bed rails as enablers for bed mobility, the care plans did not reflect this, potentially placing residents at risk. Observations confirmed the use of bed rails, and interviews with staff highlighted a lapse in responsibility for updating care plans.
The facility failed to attempt appropriate alternatives before installing bed rails for two residents, risking entrapment or injury. One resident with neuropathy and bipolar disease, and another with dementia and muscle weakness, had bed rails installed upon admission without prior alternative interventions. Staff interviews revealed a lack of adherence to the facility's policy requiring informed consent after attempting alternatives.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment for Resident's Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete an accurate assessment for a resident, identified as Resident #4, regarding her medication regimen. The resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment inaccurately indicated that she received insulin injections during the look-back period, despite no physician orders or documentation supporting this. The resident, a cognitively intact female with a BIMS score of 13, was admitted with conditions including hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy, bipolar disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic pain. Her care plan and medication administration records confirmed the absence of insulin administration, instead noting the use of Ozempic for diabetes management. Interviews with facility staff, including the Administrator (ADM), Director of Nursing (DON), and MDS Coordinator, revealed that the error was attributed to a typographical mistake by the MDS Coordinator. The staff acknowledged the potential implications of such inaccuracies, including incorrect care and reimbursement rates. The MDS Coordinator admitted to the error, emphasizing the importance of accurate data entry in the MDS assessment process. The deficiency was identified through a review of the resident's records and staff interviews, highlighting the need for precise documentation to ensure appropriate resident care and facility operations.
Failure to Include Bed Rail Use in Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two residents, which included the omission of bed rail use in their care plans. Resident #28, a male with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, anxiety disorder, osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, hallucinations, and a history of falls, was admitted with an order for bed rails as an enabler for bed mobility. Despite this, his care plan did not mention the use of bed rails, which were observed in use during multiple observations. Similarly, Resident #101, a male with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, insomnia, and muscle weakness, was admitted with an order for bed rails for bed mobility. His care plan also failed to include the use of bed rails, although they were observed in use during several observations. During an interview, Resident #101 acknowledged using the bed rails for mobility, indicating their importance in his care. Interviews with facility staff, including the MDS Coordinator and ADM, revealed that the responsibility for including bed rail use in care plans was acknowledged but not executed. The facility's policies on bed rail use and care planning emphasized the need for comprehensive care plans that include all necessary treatments and services, yet these were not adhered to, potentially placing residents at risk of harm due to incorrect care and lack of monitoring.
Failure to Attempt Alternatives Before Bed Rail Installation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to attempt appropriate alternatives before installing bed rails for two residents, which could place them at risk of entrapment or injury. Resident #4, a female with hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy, bipolar disease, macular degeneration, and insomnia, was admitted with bed rails installed without prior alternative interventions. Her care plan indicated a moderate risk for falls and the use of side rails for safety and bed mobility. Despite having signed a consent form for side rails, there was no evidence of alternative measures being attempted before their installation. Resident #101, a male with dementia, insomnia, and muscle weakness, also had bed rails installed upon admission without exploring other options. His care plan noted limited physical mobility and the use of antianxiety medication. Although he signed a consent form for side rails, his family member did not recall providing consent. Observations showed that the resident used the bed rails, but there was no documentation of alternative interventions being considered prior to their use. Interviews with facility staff revealed that RNs were responsible for bed rail assessments at admission and monthly thereafter. Staff members stated that they educated families about the risks of bed rails and encouraged alternatives, but often followed family wishes. The facility's policy required informed consent after attempting alternatives, which was not adhered to in these cases. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the potential negative impacts of installing bed rails without trying alternatives, including limited mobility and risk of injury.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the citations issued around you in the last 12 months — including the immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Spearman
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capstone Healthcare Of Perryton | 25.5 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Caprock Nursing & Rehabilitation | 38.5 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Avir At Borger | 38.8 mi | — | 13 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Hansford Manor.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.