Aurora Brule Nursing Home INC
408 South Johnston Street, White Lake, SD 57383 · For profit - Corporation · 44 certified beds · (605) 249-2216 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $17,928 in federal fines (most recent 2024-03-06)
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 19.5% | 21.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 5.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.0% | 2.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.0% | 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 | 0.7% | 5.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.4% | 19.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.7% | 17.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.7% | 96.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.6% | 4.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.3% | 25.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.8% | 24.6% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.0% | 19.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.4% | 12.0% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.62 | 1.52 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.09 | 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.
39.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 41 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 67.9% 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 28 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 39.8%CMS range 29.6–54.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.0%CMS range 6.4–15.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 67.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 46.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 71.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 77.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.99 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 44 beds and averages 44.2 residents a day — about 100% occupied, or roughly -0 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.29 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.33 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.19 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-04-23 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Substantial compliance was confirmed on 4/23/24 after record review revealed the facility had followed their quality assurance process; after the dietitian was contacted for acceptable hot beverage temperatures; after the hot beverage vender was contacted to lower the dispenser's temperature; after the dispensers were unplugged until the vender could arrive; after the facility created new policies and provided education to all staff regarding: acceptable hot beverage temperatures, monitoring of assisted dining, and first aid to a burn; after observations of residents and staff during the assisted dining meal service; after assisted dining residents were assessed for safety; after assisted dining resident interview confirming safety lids were provided and hot beverages were not served until staff were present; and after staff interviews confirming knowledge on the new policies.
- Potential for harm · E2026-07-29 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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), interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse involving one of one certified nursing assistant (CNA) (V) who threw an incontinence brief at one of one sampled resident (8), told him to do it yourself, and left him on the toilet without providing care. The provider's failure to conduct a thorough investigation placed the other residents at risk for abuse and neglect by not determining if similar incidents had occurred, or if additional residents were affected. The facility's census at the time of survey was 44. Findings include:1. Review of the provider's 2/24/26 SD DOH FRI revealed that resident 8 reported to licensed practical nurse (LPN) U that a staff member was rude to him that evening. Resident 8 told LPN U that when he needed assistance in the bathroom, the staff member told him to do it himself, gave resident 8 a brief, then left the room. Resident 8 was blind and was unable to provide the staff member's name. The provider…
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 · E2026-07-29 · tag F0712 — patternEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure that required physician visits (every 30 days for the first 90 days after the resident's admission and every 60 days thereafter) were alternated between personal visits by the physician and by the physician assistant (PA) after the physician makes the initial comprehensive visit for residents under a SNF stay (skilled nursing care covered by Medicare part A) for four of four sampled residents (4, 8, 29, and 43) who had SNF stays at the facility in the period reviewed from 7/4/25 through 7/29/26. Findings include:1. Review of resident 8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that he admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a SNF stay that began on 10/9/25 and ended on 10/30/25. PA C assessed resident 8 on 7/22/25, 8/12/25, 10/14/25, 11/26/25, 12/10/25, 2/4/26, 4/8/26, 5/27/26, and 7/22/26. There was no documentation in his EMR that indicated he had a medical visit completed by a physician within the last year. 2. 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 · D2026-07-29 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to protect the residents' right to confidential personal medical information for two of two sampled residents (41 and 40) by one of one observed certified nurse aide (CNA) (S) who left residents' electronic medical records (EMR) information displayed on a computer screen mounted to the wall in the East hallway. Findings include:1. Observation on 7/27/26 at 3:40 p.m. in the East hallway revealed CNA S was in the hallway entering data on a computer. She left the computer with resident 41's EMR information displayed on that computer screen and entered another resident's room. CNA S came out of that room and returned to the computer screen. She left the computer and answered another resident's call light at 3:42 p.m. with resident 40's EMR information displayed on the computer screen. CNA S came back out into the hallway and continued to use that same computer. At 3:46 p.m. CNA S left the computer to answer another resident's call light. The computer was left on a screen that displayed all the residents' names. At…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-07-29 · 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 the South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) Facility Reported Incident (FRI), interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal and physical abuse for one of one sampled resident (8) who reported that he had an incontinence (involuntary urine or bowel leakage) absorbent brief thrown at him, was told to do it himself, and was left on the toilet without assistance by one of one certified nursing assistant (CNA) (V). Findings include:1. Review of the provider's 2/24/26 SD DOH FRI revealed that resident 8 reported to licensed practical nurse (LPN) U that a staff member was rude to him that evening. Resident 8 told LPN U that when he needed assistance in the bathroom, the staff member told him to do it himself, gave resident 8 a brief, then left the room. Resident 8 was blind and was unable to provide the staff member's name. The provider interviewed all staff members who were scheduled to work at the facility that night and determined…
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 before2026-07-29 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure an environment free of accident hazards for two of two sampled residents (29 and 43) who used electronic lift chairs in their rooms and were not assessed to determine the residents' ability to safely use those chairs independently, to mitigate the risk of accidents. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 7/26/2026 at 2:50 p.m. with resident 29 in his room revealed he was seated in an electronic lift chair with his feet elevated on the footrest, and the remote for the chair was draped over the armrest, within his reach. When the resident was asked if he knew how to use the remote to raise or lower his feet, he stated he did not know what the chair remote was for or how to use it. 2. Review of resident 29's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of Alzheimer's (a progressive and irreversible brain disorder that affects memory, thinking, social…
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 before2026-07-29 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure medications were labeled and administered according to the physician's orders for one of one (25) sampled resident who was administered lorazepam (an antianxiety medication) by one of one observed certified nursing assistant (CNA)/medication aide (MA) (M) from a medication blister pack (pre-formed plastic and foil packages that hold individual doses of pills or capsules in separate small pockets) with labeled administration instructions that did not match the physician's order for that medication in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR). Findings include:1. Observation on 7/27/26 at 9:49 a.m. with certified nursing assistant (CNA)/medication aide (MA) M revealed that resident 25 received 0.5 milligrams (mg) of lorazepam along with other scheduled medications. CNA/MA M looked at the resident's physician order for lorazepam in her EMR and compared it to the resident's lorazepam medication blister pack card…
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 before2026-07-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure that the staff followed standard safe food service practices regarding handwashing and glove use when handling ready-to-eat (RTE) foods by one of one dietary aide (L) during one of two meals observed.Findings include:1. Observation during lunch on 7/28/26 from 11:52 a.m. to 12:12 p.m. in the kitchen revealed that the menu was chicken parmesan with noodles, lettuce salad, peaches in yogurt, and a slice of buttered bread. Dietary aide L was responsible for dishing the lettuce salad onto the plates, placing a plastic cup of salad dressing on the plates, and delivering the resident's meals using a pushcart. He used his right hand to scoop the lettuce salad onto the plates with a serving spoon, and he used his bare left hand to touch the salad so it would stay on the plate. He placed the plastic cups of salad dressing directly on top of the food on the plates, rather than on the side of the plate. He went back and forth from the kitchen to the dining room delivering the resident's meals at least five times…
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 · E2025-07-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to identify necessary care interventions, ensure resident care plans had been reviewed and revised, to reflect the current needs for two of two sampled residents (7 and 15) who had fallen more than once.Findings include:1.Observation and interview on 7/22/25 at 9:30 a.m. of resident 7 in her room revealed:*She was seated in her recliner watching tv with her call light within reach.*Her walker was on the right side of her recliner with a gait belt draped over it.*She stated she walked assisted with one staff person and had fallen a few times. 2. Review of resident 7's EMR revealed:*She was admitted on [DATE].*She had a BIMS assessment score of 13, which indicated her cognition was intact.*Her diagnoses included repeated falls, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease (when the kidneys are damaged and cannot filter waste, fluids, and toxins from the body).*Her care plan indicated she had a high risk for falling 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 · E2025-07-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one certified medication aide (CMA) (K) followed accepted standards of practice and facility policy during medication administration that included:*Proper administration technique for two of two sampled resident's (11 and 13) eye drops.*Inquiring about and accurately recording pain level for one of one resident (13) receiving a scheduled pain medication.*Not returning two stock supply acetaminophen (a pain-relieving medication) tablets back into the bottle after being prepared for administration to resident (17).*Appropriately identifying and administering medications per physician orders according to the rights of medication administration.Findings include: 1. Observation on 7/23/25 at 3:52 p.m. of CMA K administering eye drop medication into resident 11's eyes revealed that he touched the resident's eyes with the tip of the eye dropper bottle as he was squeezing the liquid out of the bottle. 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 · Ecited before2025-07-24 · 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
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 safety of one of one sampled resident (15) who was transferred without the use of a gait belt (a waist strap gripped as support for safe mobility and transfers) by five of five staff members (certified nursing assistant (CNA) M, administrator A, CNA N, certified medication aide (CMA) J, and registered nurse (RN) G) observed.Findings include:1. Observation on 7/22/25 at 11:17 a.m. of resident 15 revealed: *He stated he needed to use the restroom quickly. *CNA M was walking by and stopped to help him. -She positioned his wheelchair next to the recliner and locked the brakes. -She grabbed resident 15 by his right arm and began hoisting him up. -Administrator A came out of her office and grabbed resident 15 by his left arm and assisted CNA M with transferring him into his wheelchair. -No gait belt was used during that transfer. 2. Observation on 7/22/25 at 12:11 p.m. of resident 15 revealed he was transferred out 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.
Show the remaining 10 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-24 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 medication error rate remained under 5%. Certified medication aide (CMA) K had three errors out forty-one total medication administration observations, including failing to verify resident physician orders with the medication prescription label, failing to document he had given a PRN (as needed) eyedrop medication, and preparing one sampled resident's (15) medications to administer to another sampled resident (39). This resulted in a calculated error rate of 7.3%.Findings include: 1. Observation and electronic medical record (EMR) review on 7/23/2025 at 3:57 p.m. with CMA K while preparing resident 13’s medications revealed: *CMA K grabbed an orange medication bottle. The label on that bottle read, “artificial tears, instill 1 drop into each eye PRN [as needed].” *CMA K did not check the physician’s order in the resident’s EMR to ensure the prescription label on the bottle matched the physician’s order before administering the eye drops into resident 13’s eyes. *Resident 13’s EMR…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to follow food safety standards by not having monitored and documented food temperatures for 29 of 153 meals served from 6/1/25 through 7/21/25, and not having stored applesauce at or below 40 degrees Fahrenheit for three sampled residents (9, 20, and 39) who were given applesauce with their medications administered by certified medication aide (CMA) (K). Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 7/22/25 at 9:10 a.m. with dietary manger D in the kitchen revealed: *A clipboard hanging on a cupboard labeled temperature log. *Dietary manager D stated kitchen staff were to check and document the food temperatures from each meal on that log. *He expected the cooks to document all food temperatures checked for each meal on the food temperature log. Review of the temperature logs from 6/1/25 through 7/22/25 revealed: *29 of the 153 meals served did not have the food temperatures recorded. *Dietary manager D agreed there were some missing temperatures on the food temperature log and there was no…
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 · E2025-07-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to follow infection prevention and control processes to ensure:*Resident personal care products were properly stored and labeled in one of two resident shared bathrooms (shared by sampled residents 3, 16, 19, and 27) reviewed.*Staff (certified nursing assistant (CNA) M, certified medication aide (CMA) K, licensed practical nurse (LPN) H, and registered nurse (RN) G) performed proper hand hygiene and glove use during resident care activities for sampled resident 31, and medication administration for sampled residents 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20, 24, 39, and 46.*Proper cleaning and sanitizing of one of one mechanical lifts (a mechanical lift used to assist from a seated to standing position) used to transfer resident 31 to the toilet by CNAs M and R.*Contact precautions protocols were followed by one of three staff observed (CMA K) during medication administration for sampled resident 13 related to a bacterial infection in her…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to provide documentation of a signed bed-hold notice from the resident and/or their responsible party regarding a transfer to the hospital for one of two sampled resident (7) who had transferred to the hospital.Findings include:1. Interview on 7/22/25 at 9:30a.m. with resident 7 revealed she did not think she had gone to the hospital since she admitted to the facility on [DATE]. 2. Review of resident 7's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed:*She was transferred to the hospital on 1/26/25.-The responsible party was notified of her transfer.-There was a note that the bed hold policy was sent to the resident's responsible party.-There was no documentation that the resident or the responsible party signed a bed hold notice. 3. Interview on 7/23/25 at 8:14 a.m. with administrator A regarding resident 7 's bed hold notice revealed:*Social services designee C provided the initial bed hold policy to residents and their responsible party.*A bed…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 thirteen sampled residents (39) observed during medication administration observation were free from significant medication errors when certified medication aide (CMA) K would have administered the wrong resident's medications without surveyor intervention.Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 7/23/25 at 4:42 p.m. of CMA K revealed:*CMA K was preparing medications for resident 39.*CMA K grabbed two medication cards out of the medication cart. He did not check the prescription label on the medication cards to ensure that the cards he grabbed were for resident 39.*Those medication cards were for resident 15 instead of resident 39.-One medication card contained levothyroxine sodium (a thyroid hormone replacement medication) 75mcg (micrograms).-The other medication card contained propranolol (a medication to slow the heart rate) 10mg (milligram) tablets.*CMA K was not able to describe the rights of medication administration when asked.*When asked to verify if 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 · Dcited before2025-07-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 insulin pens had pharmacy labels on them that included the required identifying and instructional information for one of three sampled resident (24) who used insulin.Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 7/24/2025 at 7:54 a.m. with registered nurse (RN) G and licensed practical nurse (LPN) H during the morning medication pass revealed: *RN G removed a plastic tube from the medication cart with resident 24’s name handwritten on it. *She removed a Novolog insulin pen from that plastic storage tube. The pen did not have a pharmacy prescription label on it with identifying information, such as the resident’s name, the name and dose of the medication, and instructions for use. *She did now know why there was no pharmacy prescription label on that insulin pen. *LPN H then went to the medication storage room to grab the bag of resident 24’s insulin pens that came from the pharmacy. There were at least three insulin pens in that bag. The plastic bag had a pharmacy prescription label…
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 before2024-05-14 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility reported incident review, observation, interview, record review, facility elopement investigation review, and facility policy review, past noncompliance was confirmed for incident occurring 5/3/24. Findings include: Substantial compliance was confirmed on 5/14/24 after: record review revealed care planning had occurred to minimize the risk of elopement, observations and interviews revealed staff responded promptly to door alarms and understood how to recognize and minimize the risk for elopement, confirming the exit door alarms were all functional and monitored on a monthly basis, review of elopement investigations and required reporting that confirmed appropriate actions were taken after elopements occurred, and review of the provider's revised elopement policy confirmed a clear definition of elopement.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-06 · tag F0851 — isolatedElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) data review, observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure: *Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) (information of the provider's daily staffing hours for the appropriate care of the residents) data was accurately completed prior to submission to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for three of four federal fiscal quarters (Quarter 1, 2023; Quarter 2, 2023; and Quarter 4, 2023). *PBJ data was submitted to CMS for one of four federal fiscal quarters (Quarter 3, 2023). Findings include: 1. Review of the PBJ data submitted to CMS for the three quarters listed above revealed: *The following items were triggered: -Excessively low weekend staffing. -Failed to have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours per day. *That data also included a one-star staffing rating for Quarters 2 and 4, 2023. 2. Review of the PBJ data submitted to CMS for Quarter 3, 2023 revealed no PBJ data had been submitted to CMS for the time period of April 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023. *A one-star staffing…
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.
- No harm found · B2026-07-29 · tag F0582 — patternGive 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 interview, the provider failed to ensure the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Part A form (CMS-10055) was provided for two of three sampled residents ( 26 and 43) reviewed for notification of Medicare benefits ending or their representatives to inform residents of potential financial liability for non covered Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Part A services. Findings included: 1. Review of resident 26's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that resident 26's Medicare Part A Skilled Services Episode start date was 5/6/26. Resident 26's last covered day of Part A was 7/23/26. The facility provided residents 26 and 43 the CMS R 131 form, which is not the correct notice for SNF non coverage. The CMS R 131 form in the in resident 26's EMR was not signed by the resident or the resident's representative; instead, a phone consent was given on 7/20/26. There was no documentation indicating the correct SNF Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (ABN) 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.
- No harm found · B2026-07-29 · tag F0847 — patternInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, resident admission packet review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure the binding arbitration agreement forms provided to residents or their representatives for review and signature contained the required information for one of one sampled resident (25).Findings include:1. Interview on 7/27/26 at 12:32 p.m. with business manager W revealed that she was assigned to develop and implement a binding arbitration agreement policy for the facility in January 2026. The policy was approved in March 2026, and only one resident's representative had signed an arbitration agreement form since then. Resident 25's representative signed the resident's arbitration agreement form.2. Review of resident 25's signed binding arbitration agreement form revealed that it was signed by the resident's representative on 4/22/26. The agreement form did not include the following required items: that the resident or their representative have the right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing the form; that the resident or their representative 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.
“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
$17,928 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $17,928 — penalty dated 2024-03-06
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AURORA-BRULE NURSING HOME | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/01/1967 |
| AURORA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/01/1967 |
| DODDS, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/17/2013 |
| CARING PROFESSIONALS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2013 |
| GILLEN, TERASA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/24/2012 |
| STROSCHEIN, CHAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2013 |
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 85% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. 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 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in SD
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the South Dakota Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 435132. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-29, 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.