Wheatcrest Hills Healthcare Center
1311 Vander Horck St, Britton, SD 57430 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (605) 448-2251 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $37,553 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-04)
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 3 to 2 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.4% | 21.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.3% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.9% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.5% | 5.7% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 10.2% | 5.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.6% | 19.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.4% | 17.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 4.6% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.0% | 25.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.8% | 24.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.8% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.2% | 78.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 8.5% | 19.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 25.3% | 12.0% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.20 | 1.52 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.03 | 1.75 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
36.3% 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 26 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 41.7% 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 24 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 36.3%CMS range 23.9–50.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 7.2–16.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 41.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 8.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 20.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 97.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | not 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.4%CMS range 4.8–13.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.25 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 43.7 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 2.69 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 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 2.42 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.81 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.74 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below 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
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-12-04 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to identify and implement pressure ulcer (skin and/or underlying tissue injury due to prolonged pressure) preventative interventions for residents identified at risk for developing pressure ulcers for:*One of one sampled resident (9) who developed a stage IV (4; open wound with full-thickness skin and tissue loss. Bone, tendon, or muscle may be visible) pressure ulcer to her right buttocks.*One of one sampled resident (27) who developed a stage II (2; open wound or blister with partial-thickness skin loss) pressure ulcer to the side of her right foot. Findings include:1. Observation on 12/1/25 at 2:42 p.m. of resident 27 in her room revealed:*She was sitting in her recliner with her feet elevated.*She had Prevalon boots (a cushioned boot that floats the heel off the surface of the mattress, to help reduce pressure) on both of her feet.*There was an air-mattress with elevated sides on her bed.*She had a heel floatation cushion…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-10-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI), record review, observation, interview, policy review, and manufacturer's instructions review, the provider failed to ensure the safety of one of one sampled resident (1) who sustained an injury when staff did not use the full-body mechanical lift (a mechanical device and sling used to lift a person's body) as directed in the manufacturer's instructions, facility policy, and the resident's care plan. Failure to use the mechanical lift as instructed contributed to the resident 1's injury. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective actions the provider implemented immediately following the incident. Findings include: 1. Review of provider's 10/22/24 SD DOH FRI revealed: *On 10/20/24 at 5:41 p.m. resident 1 was being transferred into her wheelchair by certified nursing assistant (CNA) G who used the full-body mechanical lift on her own. *When unhooking the sling from the lift's sling hangers…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-07-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI), observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider: *Failed to follow the nebulizer (neb) machine manufacturer's instructions which resulted in resident (12) receiving a burn. *Failed to follow the physician's order to discontinue the resident's (12) self-administration of his neb (breathing) treatments after he had received a burn. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's SD DOH FRI submitted on 6/12/24 at 2:24 p.m. revealed: *Resident 12 was found to have a Reddened area and 2 fluid filled blisters noted to resident's right outer thigh. *When resident takes his 2000 [8:00 p.m.] neb [breathing treatment] he requests that the machine be placed on his bed. *It is reasonable to conclude that the resident moved his nebulizer next to his skin causing the burn. * .Self administration of nebulizer discontinued. 2. Observation and interview on 7/09/24 at 11:09 a.m. with resident 12 revealed: *A nebulizer machine on the nightstand to the left of his recliner. *He stated: - They…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, and policy review the provider failed to ensure proper hand washing and glove use was followed during two of two observed meal services in the kitchen and dining room.Finding include: 1. Observation on 12/1/25 at 5:21 p.m. in the kitchen revealed: *Food and Nutrition Services (FANS) [NAME] I had gloves on, measured the temperature of the peas boiling on the stove, opened a sanitizer wipe and wiped off the thermometer. *He: -Threw the wipe away and removed his gloves. -Did not wash his hands. -Put on a new pair of gloves. -Measured the temperature of the pot roast at 174 degrees, put a pair of oven mitts over his gloves and moved the pot roast into the warming table. -Took off the oven mitts and opened the oven door with the same gloved hands he measured the temperature of the baked potatoes at 207 degrees. -Put another oven mitt over his left gloved hand and put the baked potatoes on the steam table. -Removed the oven mitt and then picked up the thermometer with the same gloves on and measured the temperature of the peas at 201 degrees. -Removed his…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 one certified nursing assistant (CNA)/certified medication aide (CMA) (M) and one of one licensed practical nurse (LPN) (D) performed hand hygiene with medication administration for five of five missed opportunities.*One of one LPN (D) wore a gown while she assessed a wound on a resident (36) who was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) (glove and gown use when providing contact care).Findings include: 1. Observation on 12/1/25 at 2:11 p.m. of resident 36's room revealed:*On the outside of resident 36's room door was a sign that indicated she was on EBP.*There were gowns in a hanging device behind resident 36's door.*In addition to the gowns in the hanging device there were shoes in some of the compartments.2. Interview on 12/1/25 at 2:11 p.m. with resident 10 revealed:*She was resident 36's roommate.*When resident 10 was asked if staff wore gowns when they provided her cares, she stated the gowns were 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 the safety and prevention for potential entrapment or injury for four of four sampled residents (1, 9, 15, and 27) who had side rails on their bed, and had documented alternatives attempted prior to the installation of side rails for two of two (1 and 15) sampled residents who were recently admitted .Findings include: 1. Observation on 12/1/25 at 2:50 p.m. of resident 9's room revealed: *She had a side rail on the left side of the head of her bed. *The side rail was upside down U-shaped and the opening within the side rail measured seven inches wide by 17 inches high. *The side rail was attached to a wooden board under the resident's air mattress and secured to the bed with a black strap. Observation and interview on 12/1/25 at 4:51 p.m. with resident 9 in her room revealed: *She used the side rail to reposition herself in bed and to help her sit up. *She had an air mattress on the bed, it was not secured and easily…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-18 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — patternProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 an ongoing restorative nursing program was completed according to residents' care planned needs for twelve of twelve sampled residents (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) at risk for a decline in range of motion (ROM). Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 6/17/25 at 10:41 a.m. with resident 1 and his wife revealed: *He had lived at the facility since January 2025. *He had received therapy services when he admitted , but his therapy program had ended. *His physician and therapist had mentioned to him that he would never walk again. *His restorative program was completed once a week and varied on which day of the week it occurred. *He expressed his desire to return home and that he would like his restorative program to be daily. *He had recently had a care conference on 6/11/25 during which he asked staff about adding more leg exercises to his restorative program. *Resident 1's wife stated she could…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-10 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, observation, review of the facility reported incident (FRI) submitted to the South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH), the provider failed to ensure four of four sampled residents (2, 26,32 and 34) had not been verbally berated or denied food by one of one certified food manager (CFM) D. Findings include: 1. Review of a grievance submitted on 2/22/24 revealed: *Resident 34 had asked the kitchen staff for a snack. *Dietary had informed her they would have snack in the afternoon and did not give her anything. Review of CFM D's response to the grievance revealed: *Around 11:00 a.m. resident 34 asked for the snack basket so she could look through it for munchies. *CFM D explained to her that the basket was filled and put out at 7:00 p.m. for the residents that got hungry between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. *CFM D also explained that the nurse's station there should be some sandwiches if she was hungry. *Update with the resolution by CFM D revealed she: -Went to talk with resident 34 about snacks. -Explained that if she was wanting something…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-10 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the provider failed to ensure that four of four sampled residents (3, 7, 32, and 43) had their call lights answered in a timely manner. Findings include: Observation and interview on 7/8/24 at 3:23 p.m. with resident 3 while she was seated in her wheelchair regarding call light wait time revealed: *She had been left on a commode for almost an hour. *That happened during the day shift. -That same thing happened again a few days later. Observation and interview on 7/8/24 at 3:48 p.m. with resident 32 while she was seated in her recliner regarding call light wait time revealed: *She had sat on the toilet for 45 minutes and waited to get help when she had pulled her call light. *Staff do not round on her at night. Interview on 7/9/24 at 2:21 p.m. with the director of nursing (DON) B regarding the call light system revealed: *If a resident were to pull down on the call light cord once it would sound once out at the nurse's station. *If a resident were to keep the cord pulled down it would make a constant buzzing sound at the nurse's station. *If 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-10 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, resident council meeting, and policy review the provider failed to offer nine of twelve sampled residents (2, 3, 7, 16, 19, 20, 22, 26 and 32) meal alternatives. Findings include: 1. Interview on 07/08/24 at 3:22 p.m. with resident 26 revealed: *Concerns about food had been brought to the resident council. *She stated The food is terrible. There have been a lot of problems. -Nothing happens, everyone is afraid to say anything to certified food manager [CFM D]. --The other day I didn't like the dinner. I don't eat fish, so I asked for a grilled cheese, and it was burned. I refused it and it was sent back to me like that, and I had to eat it or be hungry. I ate half. It was awful. 2. Interview on 07/08/24 at 4:11 p.m. with resident 2 revealed: *She recently had a choking episode and there were certain foods she could not eat. -Her son had to bring her food from home. --She had been unable to get a ham or turkey sandwich because they said they forgot to order it. ---The staff in the kitchen yelled at me for asking what Teriyaki beef was. I didn't think…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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, and policy review the provider failed to ensure: *Proper glove use and hand hygiene were performed during two meal services by two of two dietary staff (dietary cook I and certified food manager D). *The food thermometer was sanitized appropriately during two meal services by three of four dietary staff (dietary cook I, certified food manager D, and dietary cook O). Findings include: 1.Observation and interview on 7/8/24 from 5:07 p.m. through 5:40 p.m. with dietary cook I and certified food manager (CFM) D revealed: *Dietary cook I: -Picked up a thermometer and took the temperature of a pot of white rice. -Set the thermometer on a cleaning rag. -Put on a pair of gloves without washing his hands. -Opened a drawer and took out a spoon and stirred a pot of beef tips. -Took that same thermometer from the rag and put it in the beef tips. -Wiped the thermometer off with that same rag. -Put that same thermometer in a pan of beets. -Wiped that thermometer off with that same rag and set it on the counter. -Took off his gloves and put on another pair of…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 A. Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility reported incident (FRI), record review, and interview the provider failed to follow the individualized care plan that reflected the removal of dentures for one of one sampled resident (1), who required evaluation and treatment at the emergency department. provide care as directed in the care plans for the following: Findings include: 1. Review of the 3/2/24 SD DOH FRI involving resident 1 revealed: *He was observed making a whistling noise. *A small portion of his lower partial denture was visible in his mouth, and then was not visible. *The on-call provider was notified and orders were obtained to transfer him to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation. *The denture was removed in the ED and he returned to the facility. 2. Further review of the provider's FRI investigation and interview with certified nursing assistant (CNA) A revealed: *She had not removed resident 1's dentures that evening. *She stated she was aware his dentures should have…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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, observation, personnel file review, in-service and audit review, manufacturer's review, policy review, and job description review, the provider failed to ensure: *One of five sampled residents (6) was safely transferred according to manufacturer's instructions using a full-body mechanical lift by one of one certified nursing assistant (CNA) (D) that resulted in a bruise to the resident's right upper arm. *A device assessment for the proper mechanical lift to be used and documentation of the proper sling size were completed for one of five sampled residents (6) prior to the use of a full-body mechanical lift. Findings include: 1. Review of the 10/9/23 Facility Self-Reporting Form submitted to the South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) regarding resident 6 revealed: *The incident occurred on 10/9/23 at 6:00 a.m. and the final report included: -Resident 6 had osteoarthritis with chronic pain and was on comfort care related to a decline in her condition. --She had indicated the…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-07-19 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 a system was implemented for tracking and securing three government-controlled medications awaiting destruction that were expired or had been discontinued in one of one medication room. Findings include: Observation and interview on [DATE] at 9:10 a.m. of the medication room with registered nurse (RN) C revealed a medication storage machine. RN C stated: *The RX NOW machine was an automated emergency medication system. *Nurses used their fingerprints to obtain access to the RX NOW when they needed to remove emergency medications from it. *The RX NOW automatically documented who had accessed the system, when medications were removed, and what type of medication had been removed. Beside the RX NOW was a small opened plastic container. The lid could swing down to cover the contents in the box and had two holes that could have been used to place a zip tie to seal the lid. *Inside the open box were two small, sealed…
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.
“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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
$37,553 in federal fines across 4 penalties.
- $5,541 — penalty dated 2025-12-04
- $8,338 — penalty dated 2024-10-30
- $8,031 — penalty dated 2024-07-10
- $15,643 — penalty dated 2024-07-10
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to EVERGREEN HEALTHCARE GROUP — 44 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 43; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PACIFIC NORTHWEST SNF OPERATIONS HOLDINGS (SD) LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/31/2023 |
| HERZKA, YISROEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
| YENOWITZ, YITZCHOK | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
| LOWE, LEONOR | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
| SPIELMAN, SHIMON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
| COUVE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| COUVE HEALTHCARE CONSULTING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| PACIFIC NORTHWEST OPCO MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA SNF CONSULTING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| WHEATCREST HILLS SNF OPERATIONS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/31/2025 |
| HOLLAND, AUTUMN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
| MUNDT, ADA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
| PURINTUN, SCOTT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
| CH PACIFIC NORTHWEST HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
| WITZCORP GLOBAL LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
8 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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.
This home reported $80K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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
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
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.
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 435105. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-04, 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.