Search for Skilled Nursing by ZIP Code:  :

Good Samaritan Society - Loveland Village

  1. Home
  2. Skilled Nursing Home Facilities Directory
  3. Colorado (CO)
  4. Loveland
Full Name

Phone Number

Email Address

City of interest
We value your privacy. By clicking, you agree to the terms and conditions of our privacy policy. You also consent that we can reach out to you using a phone system that can auto-dial numbers. Your consent is not required to use our service.

Search for nursing homes in your area

ZIP:

Photos

Photo Attributions:

Reviews
Overall Rating 2.7 / 5.0 ★★★★★

  • Sarah Peters
    ★★★★★ a year ago

    Seemingly friendly staff until my grandmother needed to be put in their skilled nursing facility. I was horrified and disgusted by the disrespect and level of care she received by that staff.

  • Ellen Hartman
    ★★★★★ a year ago

    The staff and residents are extremely nice and friendly.

  • A Google User
    ★★★★★ 5 years ago

About Good Samaritan Society - Loveland Village

General Information

Legal Business NameThe Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society
Ownership TypeNon Profit - Corporation
Changed Ownership In The Last 12 MonthsNo
First Accepted MedicareSeptember 1, 1976 (41 years)
Capacity104
Residents92
Percent Occupied88%
Program ParticipationMedicare And Medicaid
Resident And Family CouncilsResident
In HospitalNo
Continuing Care Retirement CommunityYes
Special Focus FacilityNo
Auto Sprinkler System In Required AreasYes

Ratings for Good Samaritan Society - Loveland Village

Good Samaritan Society - Loveland Village
was reviewed by Medicare to have a rating of 3 out of 5. About Medicare Ratings
Overall Rating
Health Inspections Rating
Quality Measures Rating
Staff Rating
RN Staff Rating

Overall Ratings of Colorado Nursing Homes

Fines, Complaints, and Inspection Problems in the Past 3 Years

Compare The Number of Problems

Types of Problems at Nursing Homes

Some issues within a nursing home are much more severe than others. Medicare evaluates each problem based on 2 scales: the number of residents affected by a problem and the severity of the potential or actual harm to residents based on the problem. We have color coded the matrix below to make it easier to pick out the more severe problems. In general, orange and red issues related to the treatment of a resident are considered substandard quality of care.

  Residents Affected
Severity of the Deficiency Few Some Many
Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety J K L
Actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy G H I
No actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy D E F
No actual harm with potential for minimal harm A B C

January 12, 2016 - 2 years ago

 Residents AffectedSeveritySource/TypeDescription
FManyPotential for HarmHealth InspectionPost nurse staffing information/data on a daily basis.
ESomePotential for HarmHealth InspectionProvide activities to meet the interests and needs of each resident.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionHave a program that investigates, controls and keeps infection from spreading.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionEnsure residents have the right to have a choice over activities, their schedules, and health care according to their interests, assessments, and plans of care.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionProvide special eating equipment and utensils for each resident who needs them.

March 9, 2015 - 3 years ago

 Residents AffectedSeveritySource/TypeDescription
---Payment DenialPayment denial for 4 days
FManyPotential for HarmHealth InspectionStore, cook, and serve food in a safe and clean way.
FManyPotential for HarmHealth InspectionHave a program that investigates, controls and keeps infection from spreading.
FManyPotential for HarmHealth InspectionSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies quarterly, and develop corrective plans of action.
GFewActual HarmComplaint+InspectionEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provide adequate supervision to prevent avoidable accidents.
ESomePotential for HarmHealth InspectionDevelop a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionMaintain drug records and properly mark/label drugs and other similar products according to accepted professional standards.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionKeep the rate of medication errors (wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong time) to less than 5%.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionAllow residents the right to participate in the planning or revision of care and treatment.
DFewPotential for HarmHealth InspectionAssist those residents who need help with eating/drinking, grooming and personal and oral hygiene.

April 14, 2014 - 4 years ago

 Residents AffectedSeveritySource/TypeDescription
---Payment DenialPayment denial for 22 days

Staffing Levels Per Resident per Day

Medicare determines the expected staffing time per resident per day depending on level of care the residents of Good Samaritan Society - Loveland Village require. It is important to compare the reported time to expected time for a single facility instead of comparing the amount of time per resident of two facilities. Learn why.

3hr 55min
2hr 20min
ReportedExpected
CNA
1hr 5min
35min
ReportedExpected
LPN
1hr 40min
60min
ReportedExpected
RN
6hr 40min
3hr 55min
ReportedExpected
Total Nursing

This facility also provides approximately 25min per resident per WEEK of physical therapist time.

Quality Measures for Long Stay Residents

98.9%
97.7%
97.7%
97.7%
92.7%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
100.0%
100.0%
98.8%
100.0%
89.1%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
35.7%
30.8%
29.6%
30.8%
48.7%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
22.1%
19.1%
17.8%
19.4%
17.6%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antianxiety or hypnotic medication
14.9%
13.1%
28.2%
31.0%
17.7%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to move independently worsened
11.2%
10.4%
10.5%
11.1%
14.9%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
16.2%
11.8%
13.9%
16.4%
15.6%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
8.3%
8.0%
10.4%
12.0%
9.2%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain
11.7%
11.7%
16.7%
24.7%
7.2%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
4.1%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
4.4%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of high risk long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
1.3%
1.3%
2.5%
6.5%
4.3%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
1.3%
1.3%
1.2%
3.7%
3.5%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
3.8%
5.2%
3.5%
8.6%
3.6%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
3.2%
1.5%
2.6%
1.3%
2.6%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of long-stay residents who were physically restrained

Quality Measures for Short Stay Residents

86.0%
83.3%
83.5%
83.2%
75.0%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
90.1%
80.3%
80.3%
80.3%
74.3%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of short-stay residents who were assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
72.4%
77.6%
75.4%
78.2%
65.3%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of short-stay residents who made improvements in function
12.6%
16.2%
19.6%
26.0%
18.8%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of short-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain
2.4%
2.1%
1.1%
0.0%
1.7%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
Q4 2015Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016CO
Percentage of short-stay residents with pressure ulcers that are new or worsened



Some page content retrieved from Google Places