No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Bethany Home Sioux Falls

1901 South Holly Avenue, Sioux Falls, SD 57105 · Non profit - Corporation · 52 certified beds · (605) 338-2351 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (605) 338-2351 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 2024
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
LIFESCAPE0.1 mi
 
Urgent care / clinic
1321 W 22nd St · (605) 404-4000 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1205 S Grange Ave · (605) 328-2620 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2310 W 41st St · (605) 271-1046 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1601 S Western Ave · (605) 367-8222 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
2001 S Elmwood Ave · (605) 332-4092

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 1 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 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 improved from 2 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased22.3%21.3%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.3%5.6%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.7%2.1%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.4%2.9%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.2%5.7%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.2%5.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened20.3%19.4%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication15.6%17.4%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine63.6%96.9%95.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.9%4.6%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control38.6%25.4%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table19.8%24.6%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.8%2.0%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine86.6%78.2%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission19.2%19.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit10.2%12.0%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.631.521.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.741.751.80typical

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.

38.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 173 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

38.3%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
68.9%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.53U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.20hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.13hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 68.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 132 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF38.3%CMS range 31.5–45.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.2%CMS range 6.3–12.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge68.9%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge56.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge69.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified92.6%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting87.9%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge96.4%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.6%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.9%CMS range 4.9–12.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.841.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

RN hours/ resident / day
LPN hours/ resident / day
Aide hours/ resident / day
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
RN hoursweekends
44.9%
Total nursing turnover
25.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 52 beds and averages 42.3 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 10 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.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.63 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.54 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-12-18)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-07)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 for one of one discharged sampled resident (57) who eloped (left the facility without staff knowledge) from the front door of the facility on 8/29/25 and was reported to the facility by a community member. The facility's front door was not alarmed or monitored at that time of the resident's elopement. Findings include:1. Review of the provider's 9/2/25 SD DOH FRI involving resident 57 revealed:*On 8/29/25 at approximately 5:10 p.m., a community member called the facility to tell staff that the resident was at their home, a block away from the facility.*The staff had last seen the resident at approximately 4:00 p.m.*According to the provider's investigation, the resident left the facility at approximately 4:06 p.m. and walked to the community member's home. She had knocked on the community member's door, and they sat with her until a facility…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-10-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI) review, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one licensed practical nurse (LPN) G followed facility policy, practiced within his scope of practice, and sought direction from a registered nurse (RN) or physician for one of one sampled resident (1) related to the family's concerns of the resident having a low hemoglobin blood level (protein in the red blood cells that carries oxygen). Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's 6/28/25 FRI submitted by the provider to the SD DOH regarding resident 1 revealed on 6/28/25 at around 7:40 p.m. LPN G documented a nursing progress note that stated Resident's daughter is concerned of possible gastrointestinal bleed (GI) due to stool being black and past like. I informed daughter its likely due to new medications but will update chart to bring light to the subject. There was no documentation to support that LPN G had assessed resident 1,…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · F2024-11-07 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespread
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on menu review, observation, and interview, the provider failed to ensure adequate portions were served according to the menu for one of one observed meal. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving the main menu in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's menu for lunch on 11/7/24 revealed the following main menu items: *Beef & broccoli, #8 dip x2, which was eight ounces (oz.) total. *Diced carrots, four oz. spoodle. -A spoodle is a slotted scoop to drain the liquid. 2. Observation on 11/7/24 at 11:11 a.m. in the kitchen during lunch service revealed: *Cook L was plating the residents' lunch meal food items. *She served a three oz. scoop of the beef & broccoli. -The printed menu indicated the serving size for the regular diet as #8 dip x 2. *Cook L served a heaping two oz. spoodle of diced carrots. -The printed menu indicated the serving size as 4 oz. *Observation of the utensil drawer confirmed that a 4 oz. spoodle and a 4 oz. serving spoon were available. 3. Interview on 11/7/24 at 1:29 p.m. with cook L revealed she: *Was aware of 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-11-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 document review, the facility failed to maintain cleanliness in one of one steamer and one of one convection oven in the kitchen. Findings include: 1. Observation during the initial kitchen tour on 11/5/24 from 11:43 a.m. to 12:19 p.m. revealed: *The interior of the Vulcan brand convection oven was heavily coated in baked-on grease and food particles. *The interior of the Cleveland brand SteamChef steamer had an excessive buildup of limescale and scum, and there were food particles at the bottom of the basin sitting in standing water. 2. Interview on 11/7/24 at 10:45 a.m. with cook L about cleaning the large kitchen equipment revealed: *She claimed that she cleaned the steamer and oven every day, and deep-cleaned them weekly. *That equipment had not been deep-cleaned in about a month. *She did not know the proper steps to clean the steamer. 3. Interview on 11/7/24 at 1:34 p.m. with dietary manager G about the oven and steamer revealed: *There was a cleaning schedule for the kitchen equipment. *She performed monthly audits for kitchen cleanliness.…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-11-07 · tag F0582 — pattern
    Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and policy review, the provider failed to provide Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) and Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for one of three (247) sampled residents. This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective actions the provider implemented following the incident. Findings include: Review of provider's documentation regarding advanced beneficiary notices (ABN) revealed on 10/11/24, the provider identified previous social worker (SW) O had not been completing SNF ABNs or NOMNCs for residents who received Medicare Part A skilled services. *Administrator A interviewed (SW) O and SW P on 10/16/24. -SW O had reported he was not trained upon his hiring on how to complete the ABNs by SW P. -SW P had reported she had trained SW O upon his hiring on how to complete the ABNs. Record review on 11/6/24 of the provider's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review Form CMS-20052 revealed: *Three randomly selected residents were given to the provider for review of SNF ABN. *Resident 247's Medicare A skilled…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2024-11-07 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
    Protect 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), record review, interview, and policy review the provider failed to ensure 25 of 25 sampled residents on Promise Lane (1,2,3,5,6,7,8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36, 38, 39, and 40) had their blood sugar checked and received treatment and medications as ordered by one of one registered nurse (RN) F during a twelve-hour shift. Findings include: 1. Review of SD DOH FRI submitted on 10/9/24 revealed: *On 10/6/24 RN F had left her unit from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. and staff were unable to locate her during this time. *Certified nursing assistant (CNA)/medication aide N had to remind RN F multiple times to give morning narcotics for three residents, but she never saw RN F go in or out of those rooms to give those medications, but they were signed off. 2. Review of the provider's investigation documentation indicated the 10/6/24 video camera footage was reviewed and revealed RN F: *RN [NAME] the unit 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the provider failed to provide a written notice of transfer or discharge and to notify the ombudsman of that transfer or discharge, for two of two sampled residents reviewed (31 and 45). This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective actions the provider implemented after discovering the lack of documentation. Findings include: 1. Interview and record review on 11/5/24 at 11:51 a.m. with administrator A revealed: *Administrator A provided the survey team with a copy of their investigation timeline and their plan of correction (POC) documentation. *They discovered a lack of documentation for a variety of required notices on 10/11/24. *The management team completed an investigation to determine the extent of the issue. *The previous social worker was responsible for providing required notices to residents or their representatives. That former employee was not providing the required written notices, including transfer or discharge notices. *The nurse managers were educated on the required written notices 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0625 — isolated
    Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
    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 interview and record review, the provider failed to provide a written bed-hold notice to the resident or their representative when transferred to the emergency department for one of two sampled residents reviewed (45). This citation is considered past non-compliance based on review of the corrective actions the provider implemented after discovering the lack of documentation. Findings include: 1. Interview and record review on 11/5/24 at 11:51 a.m. with administrator A revealed: *Administrator A provided the survey team with a copy of their investigation timeline and plan of correction (POC) documentation. *They discovered a lack of documentation for a variety of required notices on 10/11/24. *The management team completed an investigation to determine the extent of the issue. *The previous social worker was responsible for providing required notices to residents. That former employee was not providing the required written notices, including bed hold notices. *The nurse managers were educated 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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 record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the care plan for two of two sampled residents (11and 25) had been updated to reflect their current condition. Findings include: 1. Review of resident 11's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *On 8/6/24 she had received a diagnosis for dementia and other diseases classified elsewhere. *On 8/15/24 an order had been received to start Seroquel 100 milligram (mg) by mouth one time a day related to Major Depressive Disorder. 2. Review of resident 11's care plan revealed: *On 8/20/24 the care plan had been updated and indicated the use of scheduled psychotropic medications related to pain management and depression. No focus area on resident's diagnosis of dementia was noted in the care plan. 3. Review of resident 25' s EMR revealed: *On 8/23/24 an order had been received to start Apixaban 2.5 mg (blood thinner) for Atrial fibrillation by mouth two times per day for blood clot prevention. 4. Review of resident 25's care plan revealed: *On 10/29/24 the care plan had been updated but did not indicate…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-07-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide 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: *Ensuring one of one resident (304) had performed hand hygiene after he had touched his blood from a wound on his arm prior to having the resident sign his name in the narcotics binder. *Establishing a water management program that addressed the prevention of Legionella. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 7/20/23 at 8:42 a.m. with licensed practical nurse (LPN) E during medication administration revealed: *She had prepared medications for resident 304. *She donned clean gloves. *She grabbed the narcotics binder from the locked narcotics drawer in the medication cart. -There were several different types of narcotics that were prescribed for different residents. -The binder sat on top of the medications. *Upon entering the resident's room, the resident was found to have been bleeding from his right upper arm. -With his left hand, he pressed a piece of tissue paper to the small bleeding wound. -His…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure medication prescription labels were accurate with the most recent physician's orders for two of twenty-eight medication labels reviewed. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 7/20/23 at 8:03 a.m. with licensed practical nurse (LPN) E during medication administration revealed: *She was preparing medications for resident 27. *She grabbed the resident's bottle of MiraLAX. -The prescription label had the following directions: MiraLAX 17g [grams] in liquid by mouth every day as needed. *When she checked the physician's order for resident 27's MiraLAX, she found that there were two different orders for MiraLAX. -One order read, MiraLax Oral Packet (Polyethylene Glycol 3350) Give 8.5 gram by mouth one time a day for constipation. --LPN E confirmed there were only bulk bottles of resident 27's powdered MiraLAX, and there were no oral packets as the physician's order called for. -The other order read, MiraLax Oral Powder 17 GM/SCOOP (Polyethylene Glycol 3350) Give 17 gram by mouth…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-07-20 · tag F0640 — isolated
    Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
    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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge assessments were completed in a timely manner for two of two sampled residents (4 and 36). Findings include: 1. Review of the MDS transmission results summary report on 7/20/2023 provided by MDS coordinator C who was also the assistant director of nursing (ADON) revealed no discharge assessments had been submitted for residents 4 who had been discharged home on 1/28/23 and resident 36 who had been discharged home on 2/10/23. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual revealed discharge assessments when a resident's return was not anticipated were to have been submitted no later than fourteen days after a resident discharged . Review of the providers 7/2017 MDS Completion and Submission Timeframes policy revealed: *Our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission timeframes. -1. The assessment coordinator or designee is responsible for ensuring that resident assessments are submitted to CMS'…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
AUGUSTANA LUTHERAN CHURCHOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST20%since 01/01/1966
BEAVER VALLEY LUTHERAN CHURCHOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST20%since 01/01/1966
BENTON LUTHERAN CHURCHOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST20%since 01/01/1966
NATHANAEL LUTHERAN CHURCHOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST20%since 01/01/1966
ST MARKS LUTHERAN CHURCHOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST20%since 01/01/1966
ANDERSON, ROBERTIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2016
FLIER, JOELIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
FONDER, LYNDAIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
HEINEMANN, DANIELIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2015
HENDRICKS-WILKENS, MARYIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
HERRBOLDT, DEBORAHIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/02/2025
HOPE, LORIIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2012
JOHNSON, ELLENIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
KRUSE, SUSANIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
NEIDERHISER, DEBRAIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
PAULSON, JOHNIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
PERSON, LEEIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2020
SANDEN, JAMESIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2020
ZINGMARK, KARENIndividualDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2024
KROGER, HEATHERIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 38 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$5.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-20.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 51%Medicare 25%Other / private 24%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$477per resident / day
operating cost
$14,487per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$396per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in SD

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the South Dakota Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in South Dakota
$9,444/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,190/mo
Nursing home (private)
$4,900/mo
Assisted living

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 435096. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-18, 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.

What to do next