Platte Care Center
609 East 7th, Platte, SD 57369 · Non profit - Corporation · 48 certified beds · (605) 337-3131 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)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings 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 $20,183 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-04)
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 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 4 to 5 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 | 10.8% | 21.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.7% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 2.9% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.5% | 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 | 5.4% | 19.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 2.2% | 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 | 14.2% | 4.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.3% | 25.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.8% | 24.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.74 | 1.52 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.40 | 1.75 | 1.80 | 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 48 beds and averages 36.4 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.17 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.45 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% 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 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-02-04 · 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) review, interview, and record review, the provider failed to ensure one of one certified nursing assistant (CNA) (E) followed one of one resident (1) care plan when she left the resident alone in his room in his wheelchair. Resident 1 transferred himself to the toilet, fell, and experienced increased pain in his right leg. This citation is considered past noncompliance based on a review of the corrective actions the provider implemented following the incident. Findings include:1. Review of the SD DOH FRI revealed that on 1/16/26 at around 11:42 a.m., resident 1 was left alone in his room in his wheelchair after an activity. Activities CNA E wheeled resident 1 back to his room and left him sitting in his wheelchair with his call light within reach. The FRI indicated that CNA E did not read pocket care planner [a document that identifies a resident's care needs and interventions] which states Cannot be left alone in wheelchair in room. Resident 1 was found in his bathroom sitting on his wheelchair…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-11-20 · 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 South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incidents (FRI), interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to protect one of one sampled resident (11) from abuse by one of one agency certified nursing assistant (CNA) (F) who insinuated she was videoing the resident when providing her care. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective actions the provider implemented following the incident. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's submitted SD DOH FRI regarding resident 11's incident revealed: *Her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score was 15 which indicated her cognition was intact. *On 7/9/24 at 9:00 p.m. she reported to licensed practical nurse (LPN) K that CNA F had been recording her while helping her with her bathroom care needs. *LPN K questioned CNA F who told her that she was not actually recording, but she had wanted resident 11 to believe she was. *LPN K reported the incident to administrator A. *CNA F was assigned to a different hallway for the rest of the night 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 · D2025-11-05 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure informed consent was signed by one of three sampled resident (10) or a responsible party before administering a psychotropic (drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) medication.Findings include: 1. Review of resident 10's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed:*A diagnoses of hallucinations due to late onset dementia.*His daughter, who was his power of attorney, requested a medication to address the resident's increasing behaviors.*An order dated 8/7/25 to be given Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) 25 milligrams by mouth at bedtime.*His care plan dated 10/22/25 indicated:-I will have no side effects of my psych [psychotropic] med [medication] noted.-My psychotropic med use will be reviewed per schedule and PRN [as needed] need.-Meds are reviewed by pharmacy/DON monthly, recommendations made to dr [doctor] as needed, review of meds at quarterly care conferences.-Psych med tracking done monthly by DON or selected nurse.-Mood observations every shift.-Family is…
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 before2025-11-05 · 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 Incidents (FRI), record review, observation, interview, policy review, and job description review, the provider failed to ensure resident safety by:*One of one social worker (D) who did not provide supervision follow-up when the door alarmed for one of one sampled resident (19) who had eloped (left the facility without staff knowledge) and was outside the building for approximately five minutes without supervision.*Two of two certified nursing assistants (CNA) (G and H) who did not follow the care plan for one of one sampled resident (2) who required to be transferred by using two people, a gait belt, and a walker with manual transfers or one to two people using the sit-to-stand lift and fell. Findings include:1. Review of the provider's 6/17/25 SD DOH FRI revealed: *On 6/16/25 at 5:03 p.m. resident 19 exited the building through the east door. *Social worker D reset the door alarm at 5:04 p.m., looked down the hallway at the east door, where…
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 · D2025-02-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) complaint, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to report suspected neglect for one of one (1) sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the SD DOH complaint filed anonymously on 12/31/2025 revealed: *On 12/28/24, the anonymous writer observed resident 1 in a soiled (incontinent) brief after CNA D had documented changing resident 1's brief at 4:00 a.m. *The anonymous writer reported at 4:00 a.m., the brief was dated 0000 (indicating it was changed at 12:00 a.m.), concluding the brief could not have been changed at 2:00 a.m. by CNA D. *The anonymous writer reported that night shift staff had written multiple reports of CNA D's neglectful behavior, but the reports had not led to any change in CNA D's behaviors. 2. Review of the provider's [NAME] Care Center [NAME] Health Corrective Action Plan form submitted by LPN C revealed: *A CNA brought it to LPN C's attention that CNA D had not been completing required checks 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 · D2025-02-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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) complaint review, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of neglect of one of one sampled resident (1) by certified nursing aide (CNA) D and failed to adequately document the process for reporting neglect. Findings include: 1. Review of the SD DOH complaint was anonymously on 12/31/2025 revealed: *On 12/28/24, the anonymous writer observed resident 1 in a soiled (incontinent) brief after CNA D had documented having changed resident 1's brief at 4:00 a.m. *The anonymous writer reported at 4:00 a.m., the resident's incontinence brief was dated 0000 (indicating it was changed at 12:00 a.m.), and concluded the brief could not have been changed at 2:00 a.m. by CNA D. *The anonymous writer reported that the night shift staff had written multiple reports of CNA D's neglectful behavior, but the reports had not led to any change in CNA D's behaviors. 2. Interview on 2/5/25 at 12:07 p.m. with administrator 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 · F2024-11-20 · 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, record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the dishwasher temperatures were monitored, recorded, and interventions were documented for temperatures out of range for one of one dishwasher used for the cleaning and sanitization of dishes and items used to prepare and serve residents' food. Findings include: 1. Observation on 11/19/24 at 11:30 a.m. of cook H revealed: *She removed the plates from the serving stack and placed them in the dishwasher. *After the dishwashing cycle was completed, she returned the plates to the serving stack. *She then served the lunch meal on the plates that she had washed. 2. Review of the provider's Dishwasher Temperature Record revealed: *The dishwasher was a high-temperature dishwasher. *The Dishwasher Temperature Record had areas for documentation of the Wash Cycle Temp and the Rinse Cycle temperatures. *There were areas for documentation labeled B [breakfast], L [lunch], and D [dinner] for each date. *There were grayed-out areas on the temperature log that coincided with the bottom of the form…
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 · D2024-11-20 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the provider failed to ensure the posted daily staff data reflected the actual hours worked by certified nursing assistants (CNAs). Findings include: 1. Observation on 11/20/24 at 1:13 p.m. revealed: *The facility's staff hours posting form was located in the front entrance hallway on a bulletin board. -The form included the facility name, date, resident census, and hours scheduled for licensed nurses and certified nurse aides. --The hours scheduled were pre-printed on a computerized form. Interview on 11/20/24 at 1:15 p.m. with CNA E, director of nursing B, and administrator A, regarding the posting of staff hours revealed: *CNA E and another staff person were responsible for posting the staff hours. *The CNA area of the form used to post staffing hours did not include actual hours worked. *The form that was posted included only hours scheduled and was not updated to include any changes in CNA hours worked. *They stated the scheduled licensed nurse hours were always accurate to actual hours worked. *They confirmed they were not aware the staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$20,183 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $14,015 — penalty dated 2026-02-04
- $6,168 — penalty dated 2024-11-20
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 43A072. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-05, 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.