Sd Human Services Center - Geriatric Program
3515 Broadway Ave, Yankton, SD 57078 · Government - State · 69 certified beds · (605) 668-3100 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 24.7% | 21.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 5.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.8% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.5% | 2.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 5.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 10.2% | 5.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.8% | 19.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 36.9% | 17.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 4.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.6% | 25.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 100.0% | 24.6% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.13 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.56 | 1.75 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 69 beds and averages 45.3 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 8.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 5.94 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
- Potential for harm · F2025-06-05 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, posted staffing review, and interview, the provider failed to ensure the posted nurse staffing information was accessible to residents and visitors at all times and that it included: *The facility's name. *The total number and the actual hours worked by registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nursing assistants per shift. 1. Observation on 6/3/25 at 8:00 a.m. revealed the staffing information titled Geriatrics AM Daily Staffing was posted on a central whiteboard near the Spruce 1 unit nurses' station, which was a locked senior care unit. It was not posted in the public area at the front entry of the facility to be accessible to visitors. The unit resident census was posted on a separate sheet of paper on the same whiteboard. 2. Review of the posted staffing data for 6/3/25 revealed: *The posting had the date on the top and Geriatrics AM Daily Staffing as a title. *There were three sections, one for each of the three geriatric units. *Location, worker, position, and shift columns were filled out for each unit. *Nurses were identified as…
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 · F2025-06-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to follow food safety standards to ensure:*A process was in place to document sanitation levels in sanitation tubs and water temperatures in the wash tubs for three of three kitchenettes.*Refrigerator temperatures that were out of range had documented interventions for one of one refrigerator in one of three kitchenettes according to the provider's policy.*There was a designated hand washing sink in one of three kitchenettes.*Proper food and equipment handling processes were in place for three of three observed mental health aides (L, P, and X) and one of one therapeutic recreation specialist (R).Findings include:1. Observation on 6/2/25 at 4:44 p.m. in the [NAME] 1 dining area revealed the drinks on the residents' tables were in Styrofoam cups.Interview on 6/3/25 at 10:20 a.m. with mental health assistant (MHA) O revealed:*Styrofoam cups were used for the residents because the glasses on the unit were small, and if those were used, the staff on the unit would have to wash them.*The staff washed…
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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI), interview, and policy review, the provider failed to follow standard of nursing practices to ensure assessments, physician notification, house supervisor notification to ensure a face-to-face assessment of the resident was completed, and documentation was entered in the resident's medical record regarding the use of manual holds for one of one sampled resident (41) was completed. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's 3/25/25 SD DOH FRI regarding resident 41 revealed: *On 3/23/25 at 6:50 p.m., resident 41 was by an exit door in the Spruce 1 unit. -She had placed her belongings in front of that door earlier that afternoon. *Resident 41 walked down the hall to the exit door where her belongings were with a mental health aide. *Resident 41 became upset and struck out at the mental health aide. *A second mental health aide came to assist. *A low-level manual hold (physical restraint where staff physically hold a resident to prevent movement, but do not use any mechanical devices or…
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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure infection control practices were maintained for: *The storage of suprapubic catheter (a tube surgically placed through the abdomen into the bladder to drain urine) supplies for one of one sampled resident (39).*The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) while caring for one of one sampled resident (39) who had a suprapubic catheter and required the use of enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) (a set of infection control practices to reduce the spread of infection) per their policy.*For appropriate glove use for one of one housekeeper (custodial crew leader) (S) while cleaning resident rooms.Findings include:1. Review of resident 39's electronic medical record revealed:*He was admitted on [DATE].*His 4/24/25 Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score was 8, which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired.*His diagnoses included prostate enlargement and obstructive uropathy (a blockage in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI), interview, and policy review, the provider failed to follow their policy to file an initial report to the SD DOH within two hours of an incident that involved a sampled resident (41) who had a behavioral event that required her to be placed into a manual hold by staff members according to their policy. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's 3/25/25 SD DOH FRI regarding resident 41 revealed: *On 3/23/25 at 6:50 p.m., resident 41 was by an exit door in the Spruce 1 unit. -She had placed her belongings in front of that door earlier that afternoon. *Resident 41 walked down the hall to the exit door where her belongings were with a mental health aide. *Resident 41 became upset and struck out at a mental health aide who was in the area. *A second mental health aide came to assist. *A low-level manual hold (physical restraint where staff physically hold a resident to prevent movement, but do not use any mechanical devices or equipment) was placed on resident 41 by the two mental health aides,…
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.
- 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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in SD
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the South Dakota Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 43A067. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.