No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Bethesda Home of Aberdeen

1224 S High St, Aberdeen, SD 57401 · Non profit - Church related · 86 certified beds · (605) 225-7580 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (605) 225-7580 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation$25,265 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • the CMS record shows $25,265 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-12)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
201 S Lloyd St
Pharmacy
2105 6th Avenue SE, Suite 24 · (605) 225-6344 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
603 Riverside Dr
Park
Aberdeen, South Dakota · (888) 326-9693 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased24.6%21.3%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.7%5.6%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder3.9%2.1%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.3%2.9%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.1%5.7%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.2%5.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened15.6%19.4%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.7%17.4%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.9%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.7%4.6%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control30.2%25.4%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table22.0%24.6%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication4.5%2.0%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%78.2%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission14.9%19.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit18.7%12.0%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.161.521.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.831.751.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

41.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 101 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

41.3%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
51.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.18U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.09hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 51.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 58 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 18% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 32% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF41.3%CMS range 33.8–47.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.7%CMS range 6.2–13.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge51.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge43.1%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge39.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified67.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay2.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened7.3%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.6%CMS range 3.2–10.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.191.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.79
RN hours/ resident / day
0.59
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.41
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.79
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.45
RN hoursweekends
38.9%
Total nursing turnover
5.9%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 86 beds and averages 82.4 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.41 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.10 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

7
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-12)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-21)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2026-03-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure pressure injury prevention interventions were identified and implemented for one of one sampled resident (70) who developed a deep tissue injury (DTI) (a pressure ulcer/injury with purple or maroon discolored skin and underlying soft tissue damage, caused by intense, prolonged pressure) on her right heel. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 3/10/26 at 2:35 p.m. with resident 70 while she was in her room watching television, revealed that her bed was located next to the window. She had hard surface protective boots on both her lower legs and feet. There were Velcro straps that were wrapped around her lower legs, holding those boots in place. She stated that she had multiple sclerosis (a condition where the immune system attacks the nervous system, causing damage and scar tissue) and that she had a left heel pressure injury that developed before she was admitted to this facility from another long-term care facility.…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the staff followed food safety standards to:*Maintain a clean and sanitary food service environment in one of one main kitchen and one of one activity room kitchenette.*Store raw meat to prevent potential cross-contamination in one of one walk-in cooler.*Label and date bulk food ingredients in one of one activity room kitchenette according to the provider's policy.*Ensure one of one activity room dishwasher used for special events reached the temperature required for sanitizing residents' drinkware and dishes.*Ensure hand hygiene (washing hands or using hand sanitizer) was performed after direct contact with soiled surfaces and resident equipment by certified nurse aide (CNA) (M) before the CNA poured water into glasses for three of three sampled residents (1, 19, and 67) during one of two observed meal services. Findings include: 1. Observation on 3/10/26 at 8:35 a.m. in the dining room revealed the popcorn machine was sitting in the bar area. The machine had leftover popcorn kernels in…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2026-03-12 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the provider failed to ensure the menu serving sizes and therapeutic diet menus were created and followed regarding:*One of one chef (P) failed to follow the menu serving sizes for each resident who was offered food at the facility for one of two observed meal services.*Nine of nine sampled residents (1, 7, 15, 17, 42, 48, 53, 75, and 90) who were prescribed a NAS (no added salt) diet, and eighteen of eighteen residents (9, 20, 21, 23, 27, 32, 33, 40, 41, 46, 50, 57, 63, 68, 71, 78, 79, and 87) who were prescribed a Heart healthy diet, and did not have their therapeutic diet created or followed. Findings include:1. Observation on 3/12/26 at 8:41 a.m. in the kitchen of chef P revealed he was serving breakfast from a steam table. He served ham and cheese egg scramble with a green-handled #12 scoop, and breakfast potatoes with a pair of tongs. There was a meal ticket printer that printed the residents' meal choices. Those meal tickets included the menu item, but not the serving sizes. 2. Review of the provider's menu and recipe binder…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0552 — isolated
    Ensure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the staff educated the resident or resident's representative of the risk versus benefits of medications or of alternative treatments to make an informed decision for the consent for the use of psychotropic medications (drugs that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) before they were given for two of two sampled residents (7 and 10). Findings include:1. Review of resident 2's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive and irreversible brain disorder that affects memory, thinking, social abilities, and body functions), unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition, unspecified hallucinations, delusional disorder (false beliefs and distorted views of reality), dementia (a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking, and social abilities), depression, and anxiety…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0640 — isolated
    Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.20.1 October 2025 review revealed the provider failed to ensure staff electronically submitted Minimum Data Set Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a tool used to evaluate a resident's health status and to develop an individualized care plan to manage the resident's care needs) assessments to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the required 14 day time frame from the residents' discharge for three of three sampled discharged residents (33, 43, and 92).Findings include: 1. Review of resident 33's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. His 11/4/25 discharge tracking MDS assessment was not transmitted to CMS. 2. Review of resident 43's EMR revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was discharged on 11/25/25 to her daughters' home. Resident 43's 11/25/25…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (2) with dementia and episodes of hallucinations, behaviors, and agitation, had person-centered interventions included in the resident's plan of care for the staff to implement to assist the resident during those episodes to meet her dementia care needs. Findings include:1. Observation and interview on 3/11/26 at 9:44 a.m. in the Morning Dove Lounge revealed that resident 2 was sitting in a recliner. She had her left leg pulled up towards her torso, and she appeared to be trying to adjust her gripper sock or the cuff of her pants. Her walker was in front of her. She was not wearing shoes. When asked how she was doing that day, she mumbled about there being a bum on or near her left foot. She was not easily understood. She put her left foot back down on the floor, reached forward, and continued to point and readjust her pant leg while talking about the bum. 2. Interview on 3/12/26 at 12:29 p.m. with certified nurse aide (CNA) K revealed that resident 2 often…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-12 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the staff followed nursing professional standards related to following physician orders regarding blood glucose monitoring and physician notification for one of one sampled resident (3) who had low blood sugar levels, and oxygen saturation (percentage of oxygen in the blood) monitoring for one of one sampled resident (32) with physician's orders to keep her oxygen saturation levels above 90 percent. Findings include: 1. Interview on 3/10/26 at 3:00 p.m. with resident 3 revealed he received insulin. He had a history of low blood sugar levels in the mornings. He mentioned that he did not feel any different when his blood sugar level was low. The staff usually gave him a glass of juice if his blood sugar was low. Sometimes, his blood sugar level got as low as 50 to 57 (milligrams per deciliter, mg/dL) in the mornings. 2. Review of resident 3's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he had a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (a condition involving disruptions in how the body regulates…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure safe food was at safe temperatures prior to serving residents food by one chef (H) during an observed breakfast meal service. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 11/19/24 at 7:45 a.m. with chef M, chef H, and culinary services manager (CSM) D revealed: *Chef M was at the steam table serving breakfast to residents and stated chef H would have done the food temperatures this morning. *Chef H was by the ovens and the food prep area, and stated she forgot to take the food temperatures that morning. -The food temperature logs indicated food temperatures had not been documented that morning and chef H stated she would sometimes take the food temperatures but not log them and sometimes she would just forget to take the food temperatures. -She stated she should check the temperatures of the food coming out of oven and at the steam table. *CSM D told chef H to temp the next batch of food and log those temperatures. Chef H completed that task. 2. Record review and interview on…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to develop in collaboration with hospice a comprehensive care plan for one of one resident (288) who received oxygen and hospice services. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 11/19/24 at 9:42 a.m. with resident 288 in her room revealed: *She was short of breath, spoke softly, and was wearing oxygen nasal cannula tubing (tubing with nasal prongs) on her face. *There was an oxygen concentrator (a device that delivers concentrated oxygen) with a humidifier attached to it. The oxygen flow rate was set at 5 Liters (L) per minute. *A portable oxygen tank was on the back of her wheelchair. 2. Review of resident 288's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *Resident 288 had been admitted on [DATE] from home with continued hospice services. *Her diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of unspecified bronchus or lung, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and other forms of dyspnea. *There was a…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to maintain the cleanliness of the oxygen concentrator, tubing, and humidifier and to administer the nebulizer treatment appropriately after determining the resident could not self-administer that treatment for one of one observed sampled resident (288) who received oxygen. Findings include: 1. Observation on 11/19/24 between 8:25 am and 9:02 a.m. with resident 288 in her room revealed: *At 8:25 a.m. registered nurse (RN) F started her nebulizer (neb) machine for the administration of her neb medication treatment and then left the room. -Resident 288 asked the surveyor to return when she completed that nebulizer treatment. *At 8:40 a.m. the nebulizer treatment was running and resident 288 was wearing a neb mask. *At 8:55 a.m. the nebulizer was still running and resident 288 was holding the mask in her hand. *At 9:02 a.m. RN F walked by resident 288's room and into room [ROOM NUMBER]. Resident 288's nebulizer was still running…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0849 — isolated
    Arrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and review of the Hospice and Nursing Facility Services Agreement, the provider failed to ensure an integrated plan of care had been developed and made accessible between the provider's nursing staff and hospice agency for one of one sampled resident (288) who received hospice services. Findings include: 1. Review of resident 288's facility care plan revealed: *She had been admitted on [DATE]. *Her diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of unspecified bronchus or lung, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and other forms of dyspnea. *[Resident 288] was admitted on hospice from home. *A focus area: Resident and family have opted for hospice benefits and comfort care only. *A goal: Will receive additional support from hospice. Have comfort and dignity maintained on [a] daily basis. *Interventions/Tasks: -Keep family and hospice involved in care planning and decision making as well as updated on any changes in conditions or orders. -Keep hospice staff…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-07-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to ensure: *One of seven refrigerators was set at an appropriate temperature for safe food storage. *Two of seven refrigerators were monitored for safe temperature control. 1. Observations on 7/24/23 at 3:27 p.m. in the kitchen revealed: *The south refrigerator had four glass doors. *The gasket around the bottom right door was torn in several places. *The thermometer on the front of the refrigerator read 51 degrees. *The thermometer on the inside of the refrigerator read 58 degrees. *Refrigerator temperatures should be maintained between 35 and 41 degrees. *The refrigerator contained the following: -Fifty-nine bowls of cherry crisp dessert. -thirty-three bowls of lettuce salad. -thirty-six cups of French salad dressing. -Six ham salad sandwiches. -Two cakes labeled Hawaiian. Interview on 7/24/23 at 3:29 p.m. with culinary dining assistant I about the above observations revealed: *The south refrigerator was mainly used for…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$25,265 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $25,265 — penalty dated 2026-03-12

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
AKKERMAN, CHARIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 05/01/2020
ALBL, JUDYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2016
ANDERESON, ZACHARYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 05/01/2021
ARMBRIGHT, LELANDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2019
DANGEL, DIANEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2024
EISENBEISZ, SCOTTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2019
ELSEN, TERRIIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2014
LANGBEHN, ANNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 05/01/2015
PENCE, STACEYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2024
WARRINGTON, DIANEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2023
BOHLE, LORIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/11/1991
REDMOND, STEVENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$9.7M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-15.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 37%Medicare 14%Other / private 49%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$386per resident / day
operating cost
$11,723per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$334per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in SD

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the South Dakota Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in South Dakota
$9,444/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,190/mo
Nursing home (private)
$4,900/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 435073. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next