Michael J Fitzmaurice South Dakota Veterans Home
2500 Minnekahta Avenue, Hot Springs, SD 57747 · Government - State · 78 certified beds · (605) 745-5127 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2025
- 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 1 actual-harm citation
- 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 $39,293 in federal fines (most recent 2025-05-01)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 5 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 | 20.7% | 21.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 13.4% | 5.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 5.7% | 2.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 5.7% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 8.4% | 5.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.4% | 19.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.9% | 17.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 96.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 4.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.4% | 25.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 33.7% | 24.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.47 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.68 | 1.75 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 14% of the 13,714 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 14% — 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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
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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-05-01 · 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), observation, record review, and interview, the provider failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect by one of one licensed practical nurse (LPN) (U) who failed to initiate standing orders for an upset stomach for one of one sampled resident (210) after he became sick in the dining room at supper time and later that night aspirated on his emesis and passed away. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on a review of the corrective actions the provider implemented immediately following the incident. Findings included: 1. Review of the provider's SD DOH FRI submitted on 2/14/25 at 10:35 a.m. revealed: *Nurse manager P had been completing a chart audit for an Ombudsman report regarding resident 210 and had concerns regarding some missing documentation the day before he passed away. *Nurse manager P had completed a camera review and discovered resident 210 had an episode of emesis (vomiting) in 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-05-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure ordered treatments for a current pressure ulcer (skin wound caused by prolonged pressure) were completed and preventative interventions were consistently implemented for one of one sampled resident (47) who developed additional pressure ulcers (wounds) on his toes. Findings include: 1. Observation on 4/29/25 at 11:35 a.m. of resident 47 in his room revealed: *He was seated in a recliner with the footrest halfway up. -He had on a pair of gripper socks on his feet. Observation on 4/30/25 at 1:48 p.m. of resident 47 in his room revealed: *He was seated in a recliner with the footrest up, and he was covered with a blanket. *A wheelchair was across the room, against the wall, with a pair of protective boots on the seat. Observation on 4/30/25 at 2:59 p.m. and again at 3:07 p.m. of resident 47 revealed he was lying on his bed, his eyes were closed, and a bed cradle device (suspends bedsheets and blankets off a person's legs and feet) was holding the blankets off his feet. Observation on 5/1/25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-07-09 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 and interview, the provider failed to ensure that the resident's baseline care plan (a standardized, person-centered guide developed for newly admitted residents) was completed, reviewed with the resident or the resident's representative, and that a written copy was provided to the resident or their representative within 48 hours of the resident's admission to the facility for two of two sampled residents (8 and 48).Findings include:1. Review of resident 8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that he admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a 6/15/26 Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 14, which indicated his cognition was intact. There was no baseline care plan in his EMR, and no documentation that it had been reviewed with him or his representative. A copy of the baseline care plan was requested.In response to the request, the facility provided a copy of the care plan (a personalized plan that addresses a resident's care needs, goals, and interventions)…
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 before2025-05-01 · 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 Based on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure proper infection control practices were followed regarding: *Hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) use by four of four observed staff (E, O, R, and S) for one sampled resident (360) with a physician order for contact precautions related to an infected unhealed chest wound and two sampled residents (10 and 49) on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) who resided in the NASA unit. *The storage and maintenance of wound care supplies in one of one observed treatment cart located in the NASA unit. Findings include: 1. A review of resident 360's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *He was admitted on [DATE] and resided in the NASA unit. *He had a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease, stage 5, which required dialysis (a process that filters waste and excess fluids from the blood when the kidneys are unable to do so effectively) three times a week. *He had a recent dialysis fistula (a connection made between…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure an environment free from potential hazards by not following their policy and ensuring that lighters for two of two sampled residents (33 and 42) who smoked were secured at the nurses' station when not in use. Findings include: 1. Observation on 4/29/25 of resident 33 in the dining room at 4:43 p.m.: *Resident 33 asked homemaker K for cigarettes. *Homemaker K provided her with two cigarettes but no lighter. *Multiple random daily observations from 4/29/25 through 5/1/25 revealed resident 33 was outside of the unit at the designated smoking area. *Observation on 5/1/25 at 2:30 p.m. of resident 33 in her neighborhood revealed she: *Was wearing a coat and asked another resident to go out to the smoking area with her. *Received two cigarettes from an unidentified staff member. *Had not requested or received a lighter from staff prior to exiting the unit and going outside to the smoking area. *Interview on 4/29/25 at 4:45 p.m. with resident 33 revealed: *She was going outside to smoke. *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 · E2025-05-01 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — patternRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
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 bed rails for safe use for five of five sampled residents (24, 28, 41, 44, and 47) who had bed rails on their beds. Findings included: 1. Observation on 4/29/25 at 9:57 a.m. of resident 28's room revealed grab bars were on both sides of the bed. Review of resident 28's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *He was admitted on [DATE]. *A device evaluation for his use of bed rails was last completed on 1/13/25. -He utilized the bed rails for turning and repositioning while in bed. There was no documentation that an assessment of the bed rails had been completed to determine safe use or measurements of the bed rails for risk of entrapment and injury. 2. Observation and interview on 4/29/25 at 10:00 a.m. with resident 24 in his room revealed: *He had bed rails on both sides of his bed. *He was unsure why he had the bed rails, and stated they had come with the bed when he was admitted to the facility. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · 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
Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the care plan was reviewed and revised to reflect the current necessary care needs for one of one sampled resident (47). Findings include: 1. Observation on 4/29/25 at 11:35 a.m. of resident 47 in his room revealed: *He was seated in a recliner with the footrest halfway up. -He had on a pair of gripper socks on his feet. Observation on 4/30/25 at 1:48 p.m. of resident 47 in his room revealed: *He was seated in a recliner with the footrest up, and he was covered with a blanket. *A wheelchair was across the room, against the wall, with a pair of protective boots on the seat. Observation on 4/30/25 at 2:59 p.m. and again at 3:07 p.m. of resident 47 revealed he was lying on his bed, his eyes were closed, and a bed cradle device (suspends bedsheets and blankets off a person's legs and feet) was holding the blankets off his feet. Review of resident 47's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *His admission date was 1/16/24. *His Brief Interview of Mental Status assessment score was a 3,…
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 before2024-02-15 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to: *Ensure the paper copy of the standardized protocol for stage II pressure ulcer interventions was followed according to policy for one of two sampled residents (27) with a stage II facility acquired pressure ulcer (a skin injury incurred while residing at the facility). *Implement the use of a pressure-reducing device to mitigate the risk for one of two sampled residents (27) who developed a stage II facility acquired pressure ulcer. Findings include: 1. Observations on 2/13/24 at 11:00 a.m. and again at 12:05 p.m. of resident 27 revealed he: *Participated in group exercise seated in his wheelchair. *Ate lunch in the main dining room seated in his wheelchair. -There was a pressure reducing cushion on the seat of his wheelchair. Review of resident 27's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a 2/8/24 nurse progress note: *An open area to the resident's right buttock was identified. *It was a one centimeter (cm) by one cm…
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 before2024-02-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure infection prevention and control practices were implemented for the following: *Effective whirlpool (WP) tub cleaning by one of one certified homemaker (J) in one of five multi-use resident WP tub rooms after bathing one of one sampled resident (8). *Appropriate mask, face shield, and gown use by one of one licensed practical nurse (LPN) (I) during care for one of four sampled residents (34) on transmission-based precautions (TBP). *Appropriate face shield and mask use by one of one certified homemaker (L) during care for one of four residents (52) on TBP. *Appropriate hand hygiene, glove use, and dressing application by one of one LPN (I) during a dressing change for one of two sampled residents (27). Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 2/13/24 at 10:00 a.m. with certified homemaker J in the WP tub room revealed: *She used the following process to clean the WP tub after bathing resident 8: -While the WP tub filled with water she pressed the disinfectant button on 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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure: *The psychosocial well-being and dignity was maintained for one of four sampled residents (46) during three of three observed meal services. *Privacy for one of two sampled residents (29) was provided during his Foley catheter care. Findings include: 1. Random observations on 2/13/24 between 9:45 a.m. and 12:06 p.m. with resident 46 revealed: *He sat alone facing an empty kitchenette. -His Broda chair (a specialty wheelchair that provided supportive positioning and repositioning ability) was pushed against the kitchenette countertop with the wheels of the chair locked. -His back faced the main dining room. *A quilt with sensory touch items secured to it was placed on the countertop in front of him. -He occasionally grazed the items on that quilt with his fingers. *Other times he was asleep, mumbling, repetitively moving his trunk forward then back or reaching for seasonal decorations just out of his reach. -When staff walked past the resident they briefly spoke to him, offered him…
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 · D2024-02-15 · 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, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to identify one of four sampled residents (46) seated in a wheelchair was restrained with locked brakes pushed against a countertop. Findings include: 1. Random observations on 2/13/24 between 9:45 a.m. and 12:06 p.m. with resident 46 revealed: *He sat alone facing an empty kitchenette. -His Broda chair (a specialty wheelchair that provided supportive positioning and repositioning ability) was pushed against the kitchenette countertop and his wheels were locked. -There was no lap belt in the chair. *A quilt with sensory touch items secured to it was placed on the countertop in front of him. -He occasionally grazed the items on that quilt with his fingers. *Other times he was asleep, mumbling, repetitively moving his trunk forward then back or reaching for seasonal decorations just out of his reach. -When staff walked past the resident they briefly spoke to him, offered him fluids or moved things out of his reach. Random…
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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure: *One of one four residents (46) at risk for skin breakdown was repositioned according to the protocol of the facility. *One of four sampled residents (46) received proper and timely peri-care following a bowel movement. Findings include: 1. Random observations on 2/13/24 between 9:45 a.m. and 12:06 p.m. with resident 46 revealed he: *Sat in a Broda chair (a specialty wheelchair that provided supportive positioning and repositioning ability) at a countertop facing a kitchenette. -The brakes on that chair were locked. *A quilt with sensory touch items secured to it was placed on the countertop in front of him. -He occasionally grazed the items on that quilt with his fingers. *Other times he was asleep, mumbling, repetitively moving his trunk forward then back or reaching for seasonal decorations just out of his reach. -When staff walked past the resident they briefly spoke to him, offered him fluids or would move things out of his reach. Interview on 2/14/24 at 8:55 a.m. with doctor of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-15 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (57) with a physician ordered renal dialysis diet was implemented. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 2/13/24 at 2:57 p.m. with resident 57 revealed he: *Appeared tired, was yawning, and stated he had just returned from renal dialysis. *Had been a resident at the nursing facility for about a month and resided on the [NAME] hallway. -Had been a resident of the independent living part of the facility but was hospitalized due to a spike in his potassium levels and was transferred back from the hospital into the nursing facility. *Had been receiving renal dialysis for about four years. *Was supposed to be receiving a renal diet, but had not received a renal diet since he was admitted . -Stated, Yesterday I had a grilled cheese and potato soup. That was what they served me. They are both high in phosphorus. *Felt his diet was very important and would have preferred a renal diet.…
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
$39,293 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $39,293 — penalty dated 2025-05-01
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 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 43A136. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-09, 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.