Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Care Center
909 Jones Dr, Flandreau, SD 57028 · Non profit - Other · 42 certified beds · (605) 573-2100 Medicaid only — no Medicare
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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 $27,967 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-30)
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) | Not rated |
| 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 | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 12.3% | 21.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.2% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 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 | 14.0% | 5.7% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 9.5% | 5.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.5% | 19.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.0% | 17.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.7% | 4.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.0% | 25.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 39.3% | 24.6% | 17.1% | worse |
‡ 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.
Staffing
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-09-30 · 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 review of the South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) complaint intake report review, interview, security video review, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one certified nursing assistant (D) safely transported one of one sampled resident (1) in her wheelchair who fell out of her wheelchair and fractured her hip.Findings include:1. Review of the 9/10/25 SD DOH complaint intake report revealed the provider and Adult Protective Services (APS) reported resident 1 fell from her wheelchair to the SD DOH.The SD DOH facility-reported incident (FRI), received on 8/30/25, indicated that on 8/29/25 at around 8:00 p.m., while certified nursing assistant (CNA) D was transporting two residents in their wheelchairs, resident 1's wheelchair brake caught on the activity room window frame. She fell out of her wheelchair and complained of pain in her right hip and right foot. Resident 1 was transported to the emergency department where it was confirmed that she fractured her right…
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 before2024-12-31 · 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 A. Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI), interview, observation, record review, and policy review the provider failed to effectively implement and follow their policy for 5 of 8 sampled residents (1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) who smoked and accurately assess 1 of 1 sampled resident (3) who vaped. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's SD DOH FRI regarding resident 1 revealed: *On 11/25/24 during her weekly skin check she was observed to have what appeared to be a cigarette burn on her abdomen. -That wound measured 0.6 centimeters (cm) x 1cm x 0.1cm. -A physician's order was obtained to apply bacitracin to wound once daily and cover with a band-aid. Change daily. Leave uncovered during bath/shower. *Resident 1 had reported she had been out to smoke and the wind caught her smoking apron and hit her cigarette causing the cherry (burning end) to fall off and burn her skin. 2. Interview on 12/30/24 at 2:20 p.m. with resident 1 revealed: *She had received a small burn from…
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 before2024-10-22 · 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
Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI), record review, interview, and observation, the provider failed to prevent an injury to one of one sampled resident (1) who developed a skin burn wound on her abdomen from hot food that was prepared for her by staff in a microwave. 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 the provider's 10/10/24 SD DOH FRI regarding resident 1 revealed: *On 9/26/24 at 8:30 p.m. resident 1 requested registered nurse (RN) B to make a freezer meal in the microwave for her. *RN B cooked the meal according to package instructions. *RN B provided education to the resident that the item was hot and to let it sit for a while. *RN B returned to assist the resident into bed at 1:00 a.m. -She noted a red circle mark on resident 1's abdomen. -Inside the red circle were four blisters. *The physician was notified. *Orders were obtained for dressing in the burn area. *Resident 1 had 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 · Ecited before2025-08-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to follow food safety standards by not having monitored and documented food temperatures for 40 of 192 meals served to residents from 5/1/25 through 8/3/25. Findings include:1. Observation and interview on 8/5/25 at 10:15 a.m. with cook E in the kitchen revealed:*A three-ring binder on top of the steam table labeled dinner temp book.*Cook E stated kitchen staff were to document food temperatures in the temp book.*He stated there was a temp book for breakfast, dinner, and supper.*He knew food had to be heated to certain temperatures.*He agreed there were some food temperatures that were not documented in the dinner temp book. Review of the breakfast, dinner, and supper food temperature books from 5/1/25 through 8/3/25 revealed 40 of 192 meals served to residents did not have documentation to support the temperatures of the foods served to the residents had been checked for safety before being served. Interview on 8/6/25 at…
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 before2025-08-07 · 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), interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the safety of one of one sampled resident (14) identified at risk for elopement, who had eloped (left the facility without staff knowledge). Failure of staff to ensure adequate supervision put him at risk for physical injury or serious harm. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on the corrective actions the provider implemented immediately following the incident.Findings include:1. Review of the SD DOH FRI regarding resident 14 revealed:*On 7/9/25 at approximately 5:10 p.m., resident 14 had been seen on the unit by one nurse and two certified nursing assistants (CNAs).*At approximately 5:12 p.m., the front door wander guard alert system alarm sounded.*At 5:19 p.m., CNA F responded to the alarm at the front door, checked the front of the building and the front parking lot. Having not seen anyone, she returned to the facility, shut off 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 · D2025-08-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the provider failed to ensure two of two medication carts had not contained expired medications that were available for administration to residents.Findings include:1. Observation on 8/7/25 at 10:11 a.m. of the medication cart on the green wing revealed it contained: *Fifty tablets of Tylenol 325 milligrams (mg) that had expired in June 2025.*Twenty-five tablets of Carbidopa/Levodopa (medication to help treat Parkinson's disease symptoms) 25/100 mg that had expired in June 2025*Twenty-nine tablets of Diphenhydramine (allergy medication) 25 mg that had expired in July 2025. 2. Observation and interview with registered nurse (RN) H immediately following the above observation of expired medications in the med carts revealed she:*Agreed that the above medications had expired.*Stated the night nursing staff should have been checking the medication carts for expired medication and removed for potential administration to residents. 3. Observation on 8/7/25 at 10:25 a.m. of the medication cart on the blue wing revealed twenty tablets of Gabapentin…
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 · E2024-08-06 · 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 Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure care plans reflected the current individualized activities of daily living (ADL) and pressure ulcer prevention and treatment needs of two of two sampled residents (1 and 2). Findings include: 1. Observation on 8/6/24 at 1:04 p.m. of resident 2's room revealed her bed had an air mattress and positioning cushions on it. Observation and interview on 8/6/24 at 2:12 p.m. with resident 2 while in her room revealed she: *Was seated in a specialized wheelchair. Her legs were elevated and rested on pillows. *Stated she repositioned herself in bed frequently and could achieve several different positions while in her wheelchair. *Stated the staff used the air mattress and the positioning cushions for pressure relief when she was in bed. *Relied on staff for assistance with most of her care needs. *Had a pressure sore (ulcer) for at least two years and felt they are doing a good job of healing it. Review of resident 2's 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 · Ecited before2024-04-04 · 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 three of three kitchen staff (H, K, and L) had: *Practiced appropriate hand hygiene and glove use during two of two meal preparations. *Performed proper sanitation of the food thermometer while temping the food items before serving the residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 4/3/24 at 8:17 a.m. in the main kitchen with cook H revealed he: *Used a cloth to remove a hot pan of bacon from the oven. *Checked the temperature of the bacon with a thermometer, used that same cloth to wipe off the thermometer, and sat the thermometer on the counter. *Used that same cloth to remove several other food items from the oven. *Continued to use that same uncleaned thermometer and wiped it off with that same cloth while he checked the temperatures of the eggs and oatmeal. 2. Continued observation on 4/3/24 at 8:25 a.m. in the main kitchen with cook H revealed: *He had on a pair of single-use gloves. *While wearing those gloves he opened the refrigerator removed a container of sausage and placed the sausage on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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, electronic medical record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (11) with a diagnosis of quadriplegia had an accurate assessment that included a physician acknowledgment order for the use of a seatbelt and wrist splints. Findings include: 1. Observation on 4/2/24 at 3:05 p.m. with resident 11 revealed he was: *Sitting in a motorized wheelchair with a locked seatbelt across his lap helping keep him in an upright position in the chair. *Not wearing wrist splints. 2. Review of resident 11's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *He was admitted on [DATE]. *His diagnoses included quadriplegia. *There was no physician's order for the seatbelt. *There was a physician's order for the wrist splints. *No assessments for the use of the seatbelt or the wrist splints. *The 2/1/24 care plan did not include the use of the seatbelt or the wrist splints. 3. Interview on 4/4/24 at 1:42 p.m. with director of nursing (DON) B regarding restraint use…
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 · D2023-04-05 · 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, closed record review, and policy review, the provider failed to: *Ensure, when made aware a resident (103) was going to a dental appointment that had not previously been disclosed to the facility, appropriate communication paperwork was sent to the dentist as well as subsequent notification to the physician about the resident's condition on return and the nurse's determination to hold a blood thinning medication, and accurate oral/dental assessment was documented for the admission assessment. *Ensure, when made aware a resident (104) planned not to return from a therapeutic leave, the resident had received any necessary discharge instructions and had appropriate disposition of medications documented. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 4/3/23 at 2:02 p.m. with resident 103 revealed: *One tooth was present in the middle of her bottom jaw, and no teeth were visible on the top jaw. *She reported her gums are very sore from all my teeth getting pulled 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.
“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
$27,967 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $9,110 — penalty dated 2025-09-30
- $10,839 — penalty dated 2024-12-31
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-10-22
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in SD
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 43A139. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.