Centerville Care and Rehab Center Inc
500 Vermillion St, Centerville, SD 57014 · For profit - Corporation · 42 certified beds · (605) 563-2251 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $55,059 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-30)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 improved from 1 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 | 18.3% | 21.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 27.1% | 5.6% | 5.4% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.4% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse 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 | 3.3% | 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 | 6.3% | 5.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.5% | 19.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.8% | 17.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.3% | 4.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.0% | 25.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 43.0% | 24.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.2% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 10.2% | 19.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.0% | 12.0% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.61 | 1.52 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.15 | 1.75 | 1.80 | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 19% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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
| 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 42 beds and averages 36.7 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 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 2.71 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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
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.
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.
20 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-05-08 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, policy review, and South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility reported incident (FRI) the provider failed to ensure two of two sampled residents (1 and 2) had been assessed, care plans were updated, and education was provided to staff regarding having been fondled by a co-located resident (4). Findings include: Notice: Notice of immediate jeopardy was given verbally and in writing on 5/8/24 at 9:10 a.m. to administrator A and regional administrator D of the immediate jeopardy related to resident abuse by a colocated resident at F600 when the provider failed to ensure the following: *A resident assessment, care plan updating, and staff education regarding the fondling of vulnerable residents by a co-located resident. On 5/8/24 at 9:10 a.m. administrator A, regional administrator D, and director of nursing (DON) B were asked for an immediate removal plan. Plan: 1.Centerville Care and Rehab Center understands the severity of this incident and have taken the following actions to provide education to staff and to ensure the safety of our…
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 before2026-06-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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), interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse for one of one sampled resident (1) who was pinched and scratched on her hand by one of one certified nursing assistant (CNA) D while she was assisting resident 1 to eat.Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's 4/3/26 SD DOH FRI revealed that on 4/2/26 at 6:10 p.m., CNA D pinched and scratched resident 1 on her right hand. CNA D reported to licensed practical nurse (LPN) C that resident 1 asked CNA D to pinch her. LPN C asked resident 1 if CNA D pinched and scratched her and resident 1 replied that she had. LPN C noticed bruising where the resident pointed to indicating where CNA D had pinched her. Administrator A was notified and CNA D was immediately suspended pending an investigation. CNA D was later terminated from employment due to physical harm.2. Review of resident 1's electronic medical…
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 · F2025-05-21 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide 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 interview and Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) reporting data review, the provider failed to ensure their Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) (information of the provider's daily staffing hours for the appropriate care of the residents) had been completed and submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the months of May and June in Quarter 3 of fiscal year (FY) 2024 to support licensed nurse coverage 24 hours a day had occurred. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's CASPER reporting data revealed that the PBJ data submitted for Quarter 3 of 2024 indicated the provider failed to ensure licensed nursing coverage 24 hours a day from: *May 1 through May 31, for a total of 22 days. *June 1 through June 30, for a total of 21 days. Interview on 5/21/25 at 11:00 a.m. with emergency permit holder (EPH) administrator A revealed: *She was hired at the facility on 1/20/25. *She stated the previous administrator whose employment at the facility ended at the end of December 2024 either had not submitted the PBJ data or had submitted it…
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 · F2025-05-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 follow standard food safety practices to ensure one of one kitchen had been cleaned to maintain a sanitary environment to store, prepare, and serve food to residents. Multiple areas within the kitchen appeared unclean. Findings include: 1. Observation on 5/18/25 at 11:30 a.m. of the kitchen revealed: *The plate storage cabinet had dust on top of the cabinet where the plate covers were stored. *The shelves where the dishes had been stored had food debris and stains on the shelves. *The beverage serving cart with prepared residents' beverages on it had food debris and food stains on the shelves. *The kitchen floor, under the stove, and storage racks were soiled with food debris and dirt. *Drawers containing clean utensils had food stains and food debris in them. *The recessed cabinet and drawer handles were soiled with food debris. *The refrigerator door was soiled food debris. 2. Interview on 5/18/25 at 11:50 a.m. with dietary aide M regarding the cleaning of the beverage storage cart revealed the cart should…
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 · Fcited before2025-05-21 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and review of Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) reporting data, the provider failed to ensure their Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) (information of the providers daily staffing hours for the appropriate care of the resident)s had been complete and the data had been submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the months of May and June in Quarter 3 of FY 2024. 1. Review of the provider's CASPER reporting data revealed that PBJ data submitted for the following dates in Quarter 3 2024 demonstrated the provider failed to ensure Licensed Nursing Coverage 24 hours per day: -May 1 through 31 for a total of 22 days. -June 1 through 30 for a total of 21 days. Interview on 5/21/25 at 11:00 a.m. with emergency permit holder administrator A (EPH administrator A) revealed: *She was hired at the facility on 1/20/25. *She was aware that the previous administrator who left at the end of December 2024 had not submitted PBJ data or had submitted it incorrectly. *She was not able to document through payroll data that they facility had…
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 · Fcited before2025-05-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 8. Observation and interview on 5/19/25 at 1:09 p.m. with resident 1 in his room revealed: *He had a suprapubic catheter (a tube surgically placed in the bladder through the abdomen to drain urine). *He had wounds to his coccyx (tailbone) and buttock. *There was no personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gowns, available for use in his room. *He stated staff wore gloves, but no gowns when they emptied his catheter and when completing his wound care. *There was no signage in his room for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). 9. Review of resident 1's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *He was admitted on [DATE]. *His Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score was 15 which indicated he was cognitively intact. *He had acquired a wound on 3/3/25 to his right inner gluteus (buttock) fold. *He had acquired a wound on 3/3/25 to his coccyx (tailbone). *He had a suprapubic catheter that was to be changed every two weeks. 10. Interview on 5/20/25 at 4:04 p.m. with licensed practical nurse (LPN) D…
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 · F2025-05-21 · tag F0882 — widespreadDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the provider failed to ensure that one of one designated infection preventionist Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator C had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control as required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Findings include: 1. Interview on 5/18/25 at 3:14 p.m. with MDS coordinator C regarding the infection prevention and control program (IPCP) revealed: *She was a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and the designated infection preventionist (IP). *She had been hired by the facility on 11/30/2019. *She was a full-time employee and was responsible for MDS coordination, resident care plan development, restorative therapy, and the IPCP. *She worked two scheduled nursing shifts on the floor per week along with the above duties. *She had not completed the course test required to obtain the IP certification. *She had expressed to the previous administrator that she felt she had too many work responsibilities and was unable to complete the test. *She believed the leadership team was going to get someone…
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 before2025-05-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate 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 record review, interview and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual review, the provider failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed accurately for one of one sampled resident (29) who was not taking a diuretic medication. Findings include: 1. Review of resident 29's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *There were no current or past medication physician's orders that indicated she received a diuretic (medication to reduce excess body fluid) medication. *Her 6/13/24 Quarterly MDS assessment, section N (medications) indicated the resident was taking a diuretic medication. *Her 9/6/24 Annual MDS assessment, section N (medications) indicated the resident was taking a diuretic medication. *Her 11/30/24 Quarterly MDS assessment, section N (medications) indicated the resident was taking a diuretic medication. *Her 2/23/25 Quarterly MDS assessment, section…
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 before2025-05-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review the provider failed to ensure resident care plans had been revised to reflect their current needs for three of three sampled residents (1, 5 and 25) that required the use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for catheter care and/or wound care. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 5/19/25 at 1:09 p.m. with resident 1 in his room revealed: *He had a suprapubic catheter (a tube surgically placed in the bladder through the abdomen to drain urine). *He had wounds to his coccyx (tailbone) and buttock. *There was no personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gowns, available for use in his room. *He stated staff wore gloves, but no gowns when they emptied his catheter and when completed his wound care. *There was no signage in his room for EBP. 2. Review of resident 1's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *He was admitted on [DATE]. *His Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score was 15 which indicated he was…
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 · D2025-05-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) complaint intake review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to report an allegation of suspected abuse for one of one sampled resident (27). Findings include: 1. Review of a 12/31/24 SD DOH anonymous complaint intake report revealed: *On 12/19/24 the anonymous writer was told by certified nursing assistant (CNA) F that resident 27 was inappropriately touched on the breast by certified medication aide (CMA)/CNA G. *CMA/CNA G tried holding resident 27's hands behind her back. *CNA F had reported the allegations, but thought nothing had been done. 2. Review of resident 27's electronic medical record revealed: *She had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. *Her Brief Interview for Mental Status assessment score was 03 indicating severe cognitive impairment. 3. Interview on 5/19/25 at 9:59 a.m. with resident 27's family member revealed: *She had been told of the allegations of suspected abuse. *She did not believe the accusations. *She felt the provider was transparent about their investigation of the allegation. *She…
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 · D2025-05-21 · 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), observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure adequate supervision for one of one sampled resident (18) identified at risk for wandering to prevent him from leaving the building without staff knowledge or supervision. Failure to provide supervision while the resident was outside of the building put the resident at risk for potential accident and/or injury. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on the provider's corrective actions implemented following the incident. Findings include: 1. A review of the 5/15/25 SD DOH FRI regarding resident 18 revealed: *He had eloped (left the building without staff knowledge) from the facility without staff knowledge or supervision on 5/14/25 at approximately 6:15 p.m. *He had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 4, which indicated he had severe cognitive impairment. *He had a history of exit-seeking but had not…
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 · Fcited before2024-04-30 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) data review, staff schedule and timecard review, and interview, the provider failed to ensure Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) (information of the provider's daily staffing hours for the appropriate care of the residents) data was accurately completed prior to submission to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for three of four federal fiscal quarters (2, 3, and 4) of 2023. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's PBJ data submitted to CMS for federal fiscal quarters 2, 3, and 4 of 2023 revealed the data triggered for days of no registered nurse (RN) hours and days without licensed nursing coverage for 24 hours per day: *From January 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023 there were no RN hours reported for: -Four days in January. -Eight days in February. -Eight days in March. -Five days in April. -Ten days in May. -Seven days in June. -Seven days in July. -Five days in August. -Five days in September. *From January 1, 2023 through September 2023, there were no licensed nursing coverage for 24 hours per…
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.
Show the remaining 8 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-30 · 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
A. Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure as needed (PRN) medications stored in blister pack cards with pharmacist determined expiration dates had been monitored for expiration and removed for destruction for four of four sampled residents (7, 10, 17, and 22) in two of two medication carts (100/200 and 300/400). Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 4/30/24 at 9:30 a.m. with registered nurse (RN) F of the medication carts revealed the 100/200 medication cart had PRN blister-pack cards (med card) with expired medications for three residents (10, 17, and 22): *Resident 10's meclizine was dispensed from the pharmacy on 1/27/22 and expired on 1/27/23. *Resident 17 had three expired medications: -Fludrocortisone was dispensed from the pharmacy on 5/25/22. --The front of the med card had an expiration date of 5/25/23. --The back of the med card had a handwritten expiration date of 9/2022. --When RN F was asked why there were two expiration dates she stated she did not know. -Quetiapine fumarate had been dispensed on 5/25/22 and…
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 · E2023-03-15 · tag F0700 — patternTry 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure six of six sampled residents (8, 9, 28, 32, 35, and 141) had: *Received the risks versus the benefits education for side rail use. *Obtained a signed informed consent forms for side rail use. *Quarterly assistive safety device assessments completed for side rail use. *Alternatives to side rails were attempted prior to the installation of side rails on the residents beds. Findings include: 1. Observations on 3/12/23 between 3:06 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. and again on 3/13/23 between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. of the above sampled resident rooms revealed all those residents had quarter-length side rails on one or both sides of their beds. Review of the medical records for the residents identified above revealed the following: *No risks versus benefits education for side rail use had been documented prior to side rail installation *No informed consent for side rail use had been documented prior to side rail installation. *No side rail safety assessments had been completed. *There were no documented…
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 before2023-03-15 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate 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 record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the accuracy of current diagnoses and resident events had been captured on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for two of two sampled residents (7 and 28). Findings include: 1. Review of resident 28's medical record revealed she had been admitted on [DATE] and on 1/6/23, suffered a hip fracture requiring hospitalization after a fall. Review of resident 28's medical record revealed she: *Was admitted on [DATE]. *Had multiple falls at home prior her to admission to the facility. *Had a fall with a hip fracture on 1/6/23 resulting in hospitalization. 2. Review of resident 7's 1/20/23, quarterly MDS assessment revealed diagnoses of sepsis and pneumonia that had been from his 11/29/21, admission and were no longer current. Review of resident 7's medical record revealed he: *Was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of sepsis and pneumonia. *He did not have sepsis or pneumonia at the time of the 1/20/23 completion of the quarterly MDS…
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 before2023-03-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to ensure care plans were reviewed and revised to ensure care needs were accurately reflected for one of one sampled resident 35. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 3/12/23 at 5:32 p.m. with resident 35 revealed: *She enjoyed living at the facility. *She was treated for cancer on her head on two separate occasions. -She pointed to an area on her forehead and her nose. --Her nose was very small and off to one side of her face. *She had two small children at home. *Her plan was to return home to care for her children. Review of resident 35's medical record revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE] and her diagnoses included malnutrition, anxiety, depression, psychosis, and cancer of her nasal cavity. *Her progress notes included a 1/24/23 care team note that included she wanted to return to her home if she was able. *Her physician orders included a 2/15/23 order to discontinue her feeding tube and start her on 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 · D2023-03-15 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to: *Assess and complete documentation for one of one sampled resident (4) who had her Foley catheter removed. *Assess and provide interventions for one of one resident (28) who was constipated. *Assess two of two sampled residents (7 and 26) to ensure they had been safe to self-administer medications after set-up by nursing staff. Findings include: 1. Observation on 3/12/23 at 3:04 p.m. and on 3/13/23 at 10:13 a.m. of resident 4 revealed she did not have a Foley catheter. Interview on 3/13/23 at 10:23 a.m. with director of nursing (DON) B regarding resident 4 revealed: *The tubing from the Foley catheter had caused a sore on her leg. *The Foley catheter had fallen out a couple of times. *The Foley catheter was removed. Review of resident 4's nurse's notes revealed: *She had been seen by a physician's assistant on 3/2/23 with an order for trial without the Foley catheter and if there was no voiding of urine for eight hours to…
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 before2023-03-15 · tag F0851 — isolatedElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) reporting data review, the provider failed to ensure their Payroll Based Journal (PBJ), (information of the provider's daily staffing hours for the appropriate care of the residents) had been complete and the data had been submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for three of three quarters in 2022. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's CASPER reporting data revealed no PBJ data had been submitted for the time period of: *April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022. *July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. *October 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. Interview on 3/14/23 at 4:26 p.m. with administrator A regarding submission of PBJ data to CMS revealed she was: *Aware the data had to have been submitted. *Not aware of the importance until recently. *Not sure how to submit the data.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 infection prevention and control practices had been maintained for the following: *Hand hygiene during one of one observed dressing change by one of one director of nursing B. *Handling and cleaning of a glucometer by one of one registered nurse (E) during use for one of one observed resident (16). Findings include: 1. Observation on 3/13/23 at 1:52 p.m. of DON B performing a dressing change for resident 8 revealed: *She had gathered dressing supplies, performed hand hygiene, and put on a pair of clean gloves while she was at the nurses station. *She walked down the hall into resident 8's room. *She held the dressing supplies in her left hand while she picked up and moved the fall mat that had been on the floor next to the resident's bed and moved the bed away from the wall. *Without performing hand hygiene or changing her gloves she: -Pulled back the resident's bedding to expose her right lower leg, put down a clean…
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 · D2023-03-15 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, the provider failed to ensure three of five randomly sampled residents (19, 21 and 28) had documented pneumonia vaccination administration or the refusal of the vaccine in their medical records. Findings include: 1. Review of resident 19's medical record revealed: *He had been admitted on [DATE]. *He was [AGE] years old. *He had a pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on 3/10/17. *There was no documentation of the administration or the refusal of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Review of resident 21's medical record revealed: *She had been admitted on [DATE]. *She was [AGE] years old. *She had a pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on 10/22/15 and on 11/11/21. *There was no documentation of the administration or the refusal of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Review of resident 28's medical record revealed: *She had been admitted on [DATE]. *She was [AGE] years old. *She had pneumococcal…
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
$55,059 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $55,059 — penalty dated 2024-04-30
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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STROSCHEIN, CHAD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/06/2018 |
| STROSCHEIN PROPERTIES VII, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 06/06/2018 |
| HECHT, LORI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 06/06/2018 |
| VAN VOORST, SAMUEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 06/06/2018 |
| CARING PROFESSIONALS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/06/2018 |
2 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.
About 83% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $196K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 435088. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-21, 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.