Citations in South Dakota
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in South Dakota.
Statistics for South Dakota (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Compliance trends in South Dakota
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Latest Citations in South Dakota
Failure to Follow EBP and Hand Hygiene Practices: Staff did not wear gowns or gloves, did not perform hand hygiene, and did not clean an EZ stand lift after providing high-contact care to a resident on EBP with a Foley catheter. Staff also provided toileting care to a resident with open stage II pressure ulcers without gowns, and a housekeeper handled resident-room surfaces and items with unclean hands while cleaning rooms. Facility policy required gown and glove use for EBP, cleaning reusable equipment between residents, and hand hygiene after resident contact and glove removal.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, TBI, and dementia with behavioral disturbances used a one-piece jumpsuit identified as a restraint intervention to address genital exposure and related behaviors. The EMR showed consent and physician approval, but the quarterly MDS and care documentation did not show whether the garment remained needed, whether less restrictive alternatives had been tried, or whether restraint reduction or elimination had been considered. Staff interviews confirmed the resident had not worn the garment in a long time, and the DON stated there was no restraint-specific documentation form to track its use or reassess the need for it.
Failure to Follow Ordered Urology Consultation: A resident with urinary retention and a Foley catheter had a physician order for urology referral after a failed trial without catheter, but the consultation was not completed. An LPN knew the resident was supposed to be seen by urology but did not know why it had not happened, and the DON and ADON/IP stated the physician was expected to make the referral and that the status was not discussed in later monthly rounds.
Failure to assess, document, and report new pressure ulcers: A resident with a pelvic fracture and intact cognition developed stage II pressure ulcers on both inner buttocks and a new pressure ulcer on the heel. Staff interviews and record review showed the DON/wound nurse did not document the heel wound or notify the MD, did not notify the MD when the left buttock ulcer was identified, and wound monitoring was not completed daily as required by the facility's own process.
Staff failed to follow a resident’s care-planned transfer needs. The resident had severely impaired cognition, a moderate fall risk score, and required dependent assistance with transfers, including a Hoyer lift with 2 staff or a sit-to-stand lift. Two CNAs lifted her by the underarms and pivoted her instead of using the ordered transfer method, and one CNA stated she did not use a gait belt because the resident was too tiny. The DON acknowledged the transfers were improper and unsafe because staff did not follow the care plan or Kardex.
The facility failed to maintain safe bed systems and prevent accidents, resulting in loose side rails, unsecured or poorly fitted mattresses, and unassessed entrapment zones for multiple residents, including one who was legally blind and had a prior brain bleed after falling from bed. Maintenance logs showed incomplete or inaccurate entrapment audits, with several entrapment zones marked not applicable and some residents with rails omitted from audits, while the DON acknowledged missing side rail assessments, consents, and orders. Additional incidents included a resident with post‑stroke weakness who fell from a bed left at waist height, a resident care planned for two‑person mechanical lift transfers who was transferred by a single CNA using an incorrect sling setup, a cognitively impaired resident at risk for elopement who exited through a door with its alarm deactivated and remained outside briefly in cold weather, and a resident on anticoagulants who fell and hit her head after 11 falls in 30 days without effective revision of fall‑prevention interventions.
Administrator A and the DON did not ensure effective management and oversight of resident care and services, resulting in widespread system failures affecting all 45 residents. Surveyors found deficiencies in resident dignity, informed consent for psychotropic medications, self-administration of meds, honoring meal preferences, responses to resident council concerns, protection of health information, grievance procedures, and handling of abuse allegations. Additional problems included missing or inaccurate MDS and PASSR assessments, lack of timely PASSR refiling for new diagnoses, incomplete or delayed baseline and updated care plans, failure to notify physicians of elevated blood sugars, and unaddressed accident hazards related to bed siderails. The facility also had issues with nebulizer and nasal cannula cleaning and storage, siderail assessments and consents, call light response times, controlled substance accountability, medication errors, and improper storage of drugs and biologicals, despite job descriptions assigning the administrator and DON responsibility for regulatory compliance and quality care.
Staff failed to honor several residents’ stated preferences regarding where they undressed for bathing, affecting their dignity and privacy. One resident reported that a CNA repeatedly undressed him in his room, covered him with a blanket, and transported him through the hallway to the shower room, despite his expressed wish to undress in the shower room. Other residents described similar experiences, stating that the CNA did not ask their preferences and routinely undressed them in their rooms before covering them with a sheet or blanket and taking them to the tub or shower room. Staff interviews confirmed that residents, particularly those requiring a mechanical lift, were typically undressed in their rooms and then transported covered, and the DON stated that facility protocol was to follow resident preference, consistent with the written dignity and privacy policy.
A resident reported that a contracted travel CNA placed hands down his pants while he was in bed, which he described as groping and not part of his usual care routine. Two RNs received this allegation; one counseled the CNA but did not notify leadership and did not know the required reporting time frame, while the other, who knew the 2‑hour reporting requirement, also failed to promptly inform the DON or administrator, delaying notification to state authorities and omitting contact with law enforcement and the ombudsman. In a separate incident, a resident’s family member reported suspected financial abuse to the social services designee, who informed the administrator, but the concern was not reported to the state agency or investigated as an abuse allegation; instead, the family was only given contact information for outside agencies. These actions did not follow the facility’s abuse policy requiring immediate internal reporting, prompt investigation, and timely reporting of all abuse and misappropriation allegations to the state agency.
The facility failed to complete and individualize baseline care plans within 48 hours of admission for several newly admitted residents. Some residents had no baseline care plan in the EMR, while others had plans that were signed but undated or missing key information such as required assistance levels for ADLs, transfer methods, diet orders, use of assistive devices, and ordered rehab therapies. An LPN reported that nurses initiate baseline care plans at admission, and the MDS/RN acknowledged that staff may not know how to provide care if plans are not resident-specific. The regional nurse consultant confirmed that some residents lacked individualized baseline care plans and that the facility likely did not have signed baseline care plans or documentation that copies were provided, despite a policy requiring completion of a comprehensive baseline care plan within 48 hours including physician, dietary, therapy, and social service information.
Failure to Follow EBP, Equipment Cleaning, and Hand Hygiene Practices
Penalty
Summary
Infection prevention and control practices were not followed during care for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) who had a Foley catheter. During a transfer from a wheelchair to a recliner using an EZ stand lift, two CNAs/RMAs did not wear gowns or gloves, did not perform hand hygiene after the transfer, and one CNA/RMA placed the lift outside the resident’s room without cleaning it. One of the CNAs/RMAs stated she was expected to wear a gown and gloves for the transfer and remove them afterward, and the other stated she should have worn a gown and gloves and cleaned the lift after use. A second resident had open stage II pressure ulcers to both buttocks and a new pressure ulcer on the right heel, but was not placed on EBP. During observed toileting assistance, an RN and a CNA wore gloves but did not wear gowns while providing care to the resident’s open buttock wounds. The CNA applied barrier cream to the pressure ulcers and the rest of the buttocks. The RN stated the resident did not need EBP because the wounds did not have drainage, and the ADON/IP stated the resident was not on EBP because the pressure ulcer was not chronic. Housekeeping staff also did not follow hand hygiene practices while cleaning resident rooms. A housekeeper removed a mop head with bare hands, touched door handles without washing hands, and used unclean hands while moving between rooms and handling resident items and bathroom surfaces. The housekeeper stated she was supposed to wash her hands after cleaning a bathroom, after mopping, and between rooms, and the director of food and nutrition/housekeeping and housekeeping supervisor confirmed staff were to wash hands before and after glove use, after bathroom cleaning, and before and after mopping. Facility policy stated EBP required gown and glove use for high-contact care such as transferring and toileting, reusable equipment was to be cleaned and disinfected between residents, and hand hygiene was the primary means to prevent the spread of healthcare-associated infections.
Lack of Documentation for Ongoing Use of One-Piece Garment Restraint
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to document whether one resident who used a one-piece jumpsuit as a restraint intervention was a candidate for restraint reduction, a less restrictive restraint method, or restraint elimination. The resident had severe cognitive impairment, a history of traumatic brain injury, and dementia with behavioral disturbances. He was observed seated in his wheelchair at breakfast and later in his recliner, repeatedly moving his feet, rocking his trunk, and placing his hand in and out of the waistband of his sweatpants. His EMR showed that the jumpsuit had been identified as a restraint intervention and that the resident's spouse had signed informed consent for its use. The record showed the resident had ongoing behaviors involving fondling himself and exposing his genitals, and staff requested physician approval for a one-piece garment to protect his dignity and prevent exposure to others. The physician approved the request. The quarterly MDS indicated the resident used a trunk restraint on a less-than-daily basis, and the MDS nurse's note stated that when available the resident would wear the one-piece jumpsuit. However, that assessment did not include documentation supporting continued use or discontinued use of the garment, and there was no indication that other alternatives had been tried. The behavioral tracking record documented other targeted behaviors, but fondling and exposing his genitals were not identified as targeted behaviors on that assessment. During interviews, an LPN stated the jumpsuit's zipper was on the backside of the garment, restricting the resident's access to his genitals, and said he had not worn it in a long time because of physical and cognitive decline. A CNA also stated she had not seen him wear the garment. The MDS nurse found the jumpsuit hanging in the resident's closet and acknowledged she did not know whether staff had completed restraint-related documentation. The DON stated there was no restraint-specific form to document when the jumpsuit was worn, what precipitated its use, what less restrictive interventions were tried, or how long it was worn, and acknowledged that without such documentation the quarterly assessment could not fully determine whether the jumpsuit remained needed or could be discontinued. The facility's restraint policy required least restrictive use, ongoing reevaluation, and quarterly review for restraint reduction, less restrictive methods, or elimination.
Failure to Follow Ordered Urology Consultation
Penalty
Summary
The nursing facility failed to follow a physician-ordered urology consultation for a resident with urinary retention and a Foley catheter. The resident had been hospitalized for a left femur fracture, and hospital records showed the Foley catheter was removed and later reinserted after a failed trial without catheter. After discharge to the skilled nursing facility, the physician was faxed about discontinuing the Foley catheter and responded to start Alfuzosin for 4 days and then attempt a trial without the catheter. When that trial failed, the physician ordered the Foley restarted and follow-up with urology. Subsequent physician progress notes in February, March, and April documented referral to urology for further evaluation and care, and the resident’s catheter care plan addressed Foley care but did not include a plan for removing the catheter. During interviews, an LPN stated she knew the resident was expected to be seen by a urologist but it had not yet occurred and she was not sure why. The DON and ADON/IP stated the physician was expected to call the urologist to make the referral and that the urology office would then confirm the appointment time. The ADON/IP recalled discussing the urology consultation with the physician during January rounds, but confirmed she did not discuss the status of the consultation during February, March, or April rounds and had no other discussions with the physician about it. The DON acknowledged the failure to follow the January physician-ordered urology consultation was 100% on the facility.
Failure to assess, document, and report new pressure ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to assess, document, and notify the resident's physician of two facility-acquired pressure ulcers for one resident who had returned to the facility from the hospital with a pelvic fracture and weakness and had an intact BIMS score of 15. The resident had a stage II pressure ulcer to the right inner buttock identified on 4/6/26, and later a stage II pressure ulcer to the left inner buttock was identified on 4/27/26. The record showed wound assessments on the right inner buttock, but the report states the wound assessment documentation was not completed weekly as required, and the physician was not notified when the left inner buttock ulcer was identified. The resident was observed sitting in a wheelchair on a Roho pressure-relief cushion and stated she had an open sore on her bottom. Staff interviews confirmed she had pressure ulcers on both inner buttocks, and a CNA reported finding a new pressure ulcer on the resident's right heel that was boggy and dark red and purple in color. An LPN stated the resident had stage II pressure ulcers to both inner buttocks and that the new right heel pressure ulcer had been found the previous day. The DON/wound nurse later stated she was not aware of the right heel pressure ulcer and could not find documentation of it or documentation that the physician had been notified. The record review showed the resident's wound assessments were completed on several dates for the right inner buttock ulcer, with measurements and descriptions documented, and the care plan addressed pressure ulcers to both inner buttocks. However, the DON/wound nurse stated nurses did not monitor pressure ulcers daily and that weekly skin assessments were the routine process. The provider's policy required nurses to document and report pressure ulcers, and the change-in-condition policy required physician notification within 24 hours for a significant change of condition. The DON/wound nurse stated she did not notify the physician when the left inner buttock ulcer was identified and planned to wait until the physician rounded at the facility later.
Unsafe Transfers Not Followed for a Resident With Care-Planned Lift Needs
Penalty
Summary
The nursing home failed to ensure safe transfers for resident 11, who had severely impaired cognition, a moderate fall risk score, and care-planned transfer needs requiring dependent staff assistance. Her revised care plan stated that she usually required a Hoyer lift with staff assist x 2 for transfers when she was not placing her feet on the ground for a pivot transfer with a gait belt and staff assist x 1-2, or a sit-to-stand lift. The resident was observed in the dining room being lifted by CNA F and CNA/RMA E, who each placed an arm beneath her underarms, raised her to standing, pivoted her, and lowered her into her wheelchair. CNA F later transferred the resident from the wheelchair to a recliner in the same manner and stated the resident could not bear her full weight and that she did not use a gait belt because the resident was too tiny. A separate observation showed CNA/RMA G using a sit-to-stand lift to transfer resident 11 from her wheelchair to the toilet and referring to the Kardex to confirm that a mechanical lift was required. The DON/wound nurse stated therapy assessed residents' mobility and transfer needs, those recommendations were added to the care plan, and the care plan information was then transferred to the Kardex so staff would know how to care for the resident. The DON acknowledged that CNA/RMA E and CNA F improperly and unsafely transferred resident 11 by failing to follow the transfer recommendations in the care plan and Kardex.
Failure to Maintain Safe Bed Systems and Prevent Accidents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a safe bed environment free from entrapment hazards and to provide adequate supervision and accident prevention for multiple residents. Surveyors observed that several residents had loose side rails or grab bars and mattresses that were not secured or properly fitted, creating gaps between the rails, mattress, and bedframe. One resident’s bilateral side rails could move away from the bed one to two inches, and there was a five‑inch gap between the top of his mattress and the headboard. Another resident, who was legally blind and had previously fallen out of bed during a dream and sustained a brain bleed, had a left side rail that could move three inches away from the mattress; he reported telling a CNA and his daughter about the loose rail about a week earlier. A third resident used bilateral side rails for bed mobility; her right rail could move two to three inches away from the bed, the openings within the rails measured three and one‑half inches wide by 13 inches high, and there was a seven‑inch gap between the foot of her mattress and the footboard. Surveyors also found that the facility’s entrapment assessments and maintenance audits were incomplete or inaccurately documented. Review of the maintenance logbook for side rail inspections from January through April showed that only zone 1 (the opening within the side rail) was consistently assessed, while the other six FDA‑defined entrapment zones were often marked as not applicable, including zone 7 (the space between the mattress and headboard or footboard) even for residents without bed rails. In some months, all seven zones were documented as not applicable for numerous residents known to have side rails, and some residents with side rails were not included in the audits at all. The DON was unsure if there was a specific entrapment assessment policy and believed maintenance handled these assessments, while also acknowledging missing documentation for side rail assessments, consents, and physician orders, and that some side rails were installed without proper documentation. Additional deficiencies related to accident prevention and supervision were identified in several facility‑reported incidents. One resident with a history of stroke and left‑sided weakness fell from his bed while trying to remove his socks after a CNA left his bed at waist height; his care plan at that time did not specify a required bed height, and he was later diagnosed with a minor closed head injury and abrasions. Another resident, care planned to require two staff for transfers and use of a sit‑to‑stand lift, was transferred by a single contracted CNA using a sling that was too small and the wrong hook, causing back pain; the resident and his family reported that he was often transferred by only one staff member despite the care plan. A cognitively impaired resident at risk for elopement exited through a door whose alarm had been deactivated during daytime hours so visitors could enter and exit, walked outside in very cold weather, and re‑entered through another door after about 15 minutes. A further resident, on anticoagulant therapy, fell while transferring herself to the bathroom and hit her head; she had fallen 11 times in 30 days, and the provider failed to implement, review, and revise interventions to reduce her fall risk. These events collectively demonstrate failures to follow care plans, maintain environmental safety devices such as alarms and bed systems, and provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The surveyors determined that these failures, particularly the unsecured side rails and unassessed mattress gaps, created a risk for entrapment injury or harm and issued an Immediate Jeopardy finding under F689 related to accident hazards and supervision. Observations throughout the building confirmed multiple safety concerns with side rail installation, maintenance, and bed zone assessments, including loose rails and significant gaps between mattresses and headboards or footboards. Facility leadership and maintenance staff acknowledged that gaps between mattresses and bed ends and loose side rails posed a risk for entrapment and injury, and that entrapment zone measurements and assessments had not been consistently completed according to FDA guidance and facility policy.
Systemic Administrative and Nursing Leadership Failures Affecting Resident Care and Services
Penalty
Summary
Administrator A and DON B failed to operate and administer the facility in a manner that ensured quality of life and overall well-being for all 45 residents. Surveyors, through observation, interview, record review, policy review, and job description review over multiple days, identified a widespread system breakdown in ensuring that services met professional standards. Deficient areas included resident dignity, informed decision-making for psychotropic medications, resident self-administration of medications, honoring resident meal choices and preferences, responding to resident concerns raised in resident council meetings, protecting resident health information, informing residents how to file grievances, and handling allegations of resident abuse. Additional failures involved obtaining and documenting consent and diagnoses for psychotropic medications, timely reporting of allegations, and providing Ombudsman reports upon discharge. Further findings showed failures in clinical and regulatory processes, including inaccurate MDS assessments and PASSR evaluations, not refiling PASSR when residents had new diagnoses, and not developing resident-specific baseline care plans within 48 hours of admission or updating care plans as needed. The facility did not consistently notify physicians of residents' increased blood sugar levels and did not adequately address accident hazards related to bed side rails. There were issues with nebulizer and nasal cannula cleaning and storage, bed siderail assessments, orders and consent, call light response times, controlled substance accountability, medication errors, and storage of drugs and biologicals. Administrator A confirmed responsibility for daily operations and acknowledged frustration with siderail issues, while job descriptions for both the administrator and DON documented their responsibility for ensuring regulatory compliance and quality care, which was not achieved in these areas.
Failure to Honor Resident Bathing and Undressing Preferences
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to residents’ rights to dignity, respect, and self-determination regarding bathing and undressing practices. One resident reported in a facility reported incident that on his bath days, a CNA undressed him in his room, covered him with a blanket, and transported him through the hallway to the shower room, despite his stated preference to undress in the shower room. During a later interview, this resident stated that the CNA continued this practice, that it made him uncomfortable, and that it happened all the time. The DON stated that the bathing protocol was to follow each resident’s preference for where to undress, and that the CNA had been informed of this resident’s preference. The resident’s care plan documented his need for assistance with dressing but did not include his specific bathing or undressing location preferences. Additional interviews showed that this practice extended to other residents and was not individualized based on resident choice. The CNA acknowledged awareness of the resident’s preference but stated that all residents were undressed in the shower room, while another CNA described a typical routine in which residents with limited mobility who required a mechanical lift were undressed in their rooms, covered with a blanket, and then transported to the shower room. Another resident reported seeing the first resident transported to the shower room covered only by a blanket and stated that the CNA did not ask where he preferred to undress, instead beginning to undress him after announcing it was time for a bath. A third resident stated that the same CNA transferred him from bed to a chair, covered him with a white sheet, and took him to the tub room without asking his preferences, and that he had seen other residents transported in the same manner. These practices conflicted with the facility’s Resident Dignity & Privacy Policy, which required staff to groom and dress residents according to their preferences and to maintain privacy during care.
Failure to Timely Report and Investigate Allegations of Sexual and Financial Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely report and initiate required investigations into two separate allegations of abuse, including sexual and possible financial abuse. One resident reported that at approximately 6:00 a.m. a contracted travel CNA placed hands down his pants while he was in bed, allegedly to check if he was wet, which the resident described as groping that made him feel cheap. The resident stated he typically did not receive nighttime incontinence checks, as he used a urinal and was usually only awakened for early morning blood sugar checks or lab draws. He reported this incident to two RNs, one of whom acknowledged that it was not appropriate for staff to put their hands down a resident’s pants to check incontinence products. Despite this, the nurses who received the allegation did not immediately report it to the DON, administrator, or state agency as required by facility policy and federal guidelines. One RN spoke with the contracted travel CNA to “educate” her but did not notify anyone else and did not know the required reporting time frame. Another RN, who was aware of the process and the two-hour reporting requirement to the state health department, also failed to promptly report the allegation to the DON or administrator, resulting in a delay until late morning before leadership became aware. At the time leadership was notified, the allegation had not yet been investigated, and law enforcement and the ombudsman had not been contacted, even though the allegation involved possible sexual abuse. A second deficiency arose when a resident’s family member reported concerns of suspected financial abuse to the social services designee, who then informed the administrator. Instead of treating this as an abuse allegation requiring reporting and investigation under the facility’s abuse and neglect policy, the administrator did not report it to the state health department, citing a lack of detailed information. The social services designee and administrator only provided the family with contact information for external agencies such as the state’s attorney and adult protective services. The facility’s own policy required that all allegations and suspicions of abuse, including misappropriation of property and exploitation, be immediately reported to the administrator or designee, investigated by the administrator or designee, and reported to the state agency within two hours, but these procedures were not followed for either the sexual abuse allegation or the suspected financial abuse concern.
Failure to Complete and Individualize Baseline Care Plans Within 48 Hours of Admission
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and complete individualized baseline care plans within 48 hours of admission that contained the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for multiple residents, and to ensure these plans were reviewed with and offered to residents or their representatives. Record review showed that one resident admitted on 9/25/25 had a signed baseline care plan that lacked documentation of required assistance levels for transfers, bed mobility, bathing, dressing, toileting, eating, and did not include the physician-ordered diet. Another resident’s baseline care plan, last revised on 1/9/26, was signed but undated and similarly omitted the level of assistance needed for transfers, bed mobility, bathing, dressing, toileting, and eating. A third resident admitted on a specified date had no baseline care plan at all, and a fourth resident’s baseline care plan, uploaded on 12/19/25 and signed but undated, did not indicate how the resident transferred, walked, whether assistive devices were required, or the amount of assistance needed for dressing or toileting. Additional record reviews revealed that another resident admitted on a specified date had no baseline care plan in the EMR, and a further resident’s baseline care plan dated 4/5/26 did not specify how she transferred between surfaces, her diet, or the specific physician-ordered rehabilitation therapies. Interviews with the regional nurse consultant confirmed that two residents did not have individualized baseline care plans completed and that the facility likely did not have signed baseline care plans or documentation that copies were provided to residents or their representatives. An LPN stated that nurses initiate baseline care plans during admission and that all nurses and leadership can update them, and the MDS/RN acknowledged that staff may not know how to provide care if care plans are not resident-specific and completed, and confirmed that two residents’ baseline care plans, although reviewed with their representatives, were not personalized with specific care information. Policy review showed that the facility’s care plan policy required baseline care plans to be started on the first day of admission, completed within 48 hours, and to include minimum healthcare information such as initial goals, physician orders, dietary orders, therapy services, social services, and PASARR recommendations, which was not consistently done.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in South Dakota
- The Dietary Manager educated all dietary staff on proper sink usage, water temperatures, sanitizer temperatures, and the importance of correct documentation and corrective actions when temperatures are outside requirements. ServSafe certification was pursued for key staff members, and new logs were implemented to ensure compliance with sanitation standards (L - F0812 - SD) .
- All expired test strips were removed, and new, non-expired strips were placed for use. Disposable dining ware was used temporarily until the dishwasher was functioning correctly. Staff received education on procedures for a non-working dishwasher and the importance of using non-expired test strips. Monitoring systems were established to track the expiration dates of test strips and ensure ongoing compliance (J - F0812 - SD) .
- Dietary staff were instructed to use paper plates and to wash all non-disposable items in the three-compartment sink until the dishwasher was repaired. A booster water heater was arranged to be installed to achieve the required dishwasher temperatures. New policies and temperature charts were implemented, and staff received mandatory education on the updated procedures (J - F0812 - SD) .
Failure to Maintain Proper Water Temperatures in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to maintain the required water temperatures in the three-compartment sink in the kitchen, which increased the potential risk of foodborne illnesses for the residents. Observations revealed that the wash water temperature was consistently documented as 90 degrees Fahrenheit or lower, contrary to the required 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, the sanitizer water temperature was not maintained at the required 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Interviews with kitchen staff, including a cook and the dietary supervisor, indicated a lack of awareness and understanding of the correct temperature requirements. The dietary supervisor admitted to not knowing the expected wash water temperature and only reviewed logs to ensure documentation was completed, not to verify if the data was within expected parameters. A review of the August 2024 Three-Compartment Sink Log showed discrepancies, with wash water temperatures either exceedingly high or low, and no wash water temperatures documented for the entire month. The sanitizer water temperature was often recorded in the wrong column, and many recorded PPMs were below the expected range. The deficiency was identified as an immediate jeopardy situation, requiring immediate corrective action. The provider's failure to adhere to the Food and Drug Administration's recommendations and their own policy for maintaining proper water temperatures in the kitchen's three-compartment sink posed a significant risk to the health and safety of the residents receiving meals prepared in the facility.
Removal Plan
- DM educated all dietary staff on the 3 sink method, 3 compartment sink order, 3 compartment sink steps, water temperature in a 3 compartment sink, sanitizer temp, and when it is essential to clean and sanitize a utensil, sanitizer per manufacturer recommendations that include submerging for at least 1 minute.
- Education to dietary staff on compartment sink log requirements of testing temps and sanitizer ppm, including action required if temps are not within the requirements.
- DM, primary dayshift cook, primary evening cook, are enrolled in ServSafe Certification.
- All new dietary staff will receive ServSafe certification.
- A new log was created by DM to record wash, rinse, sanitizer water temperatures, and sanitizer ppm with each use, including what to do if temps or ppm are outside of parameters.
- LNHA provided education to DM on the policy and procedure manual, including 3 compartment sink method regulations, job description of the dietary manager including adherence to policies and ensure that sanitary regulations are followed by the entire department.
- Education provided on supervisory roles including ensuring the department adheres to State and Federal regulations, and assuming the authority, responsibility and accountability to carry out the duties of the dietary department, monitor use of equipment and chemicals, and ensuring required documentation is completed and appropriate per regulations.
- Education included reporting to LNHA any areas of concern within the dietary department, equipment, and chemicals.
- Dietary manager will complete ServSafe certification.
Inadequate COVID-19 Management and Infection Control
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to manage COVID-19 cases effectively among 12 sampled residents, leading to improper precautions and further transmission of the disease. Observations revealed that residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were not isolated properly, with some negative residents remaining in the same room as their positive roommates. Staff were observed not following proper protocols for personal protective equipment (PPE) usage, such as not performing hand hygiene before and after glove use, and not changing N95 masks between rooms. Additionally, there were instances where staff did not wear PPE correctly, such as not securing N95 masks properly or wearing gowns outside of isolation rooms. The facility's records showed a lack of documentation regarding informing residents or their responsible parties about the risks of staying in the same room with COVID-19-positive roommates. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated that while there was an expectation to inform residents and document such communications, this was not consistently done. The facility's COVID-19 outbreak policy required placing residents with confirmed infections in single-person rooms when possible, but this was not adhered to, as evidenced by multiple residents remaining in shared rooms despite positive test results. Further deficiencies were noted in the implementation of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for residents with indwelling urinary catheters and wounds. Observations showed that staff did not consistently use gowns, gloves, or eye protection when providing care to these residents, contrary to the facility's policy. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to EBP protocols, with some staff unable to locate necessary PPE or unaware of the requirements for its use. This lack of compliance with infection control measures contributed to the facility's failure to prevent the spread of infections effectively.
Removal Plan
- All COVID-positive residents were moved in with other COVID-positive residents. All negative residents are grouped with well residents with no signs or symptoms of COVID. Other negative residents with known exposure, including resident #6, #38, and resident #8, are in the presumptive area with other presumptive residents.
- Staff have been educated on the importance of keeping all positive residents on isolation for 10 days. Staff are to redirect if they want to come out of their room.
- Staff education was completed by the DON and RN Nurse Specialist to ensure all staff who are currently working and are providing care to positive and presumptive residents knew how to properly DONN and DOFF PPE. PPE is put on prior to entering positive and presumptive rooms. This includes removing the gloves and gown inside the room and performing hand hygiene. The removal of the eye protection and mask happens outside the room. Masks and eye protection are discarded. Hand hygiene is performed again. All those not on shift will be educated prior to them coming on shift.
- All staff currently on shift were educated on properly wearing an N95 mask. All those not on shift will be educated prior to them coming on shift.
- All staff currently on shift were educated on proper hand hygiene after DOFFING PPE prior to assisting another resident. All those not on shift will be educated prior to them coming on shift.
- Any concerns will be reported to the charge nurse, director of nursing, infection preventionist, and/or administrator immediately and addressed in facility QAPI.
Deficiency in Diabetic Care and Physician Notification
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to ensure proper care and services for diabetic residents, specifically in monitoring blood sugar levels and notifying physicians when levels were outside the normal range. This deficiency affected four out of seven diabetic residents, leading to instances where blood sugar levels were not managed according to accepted clinical standards. Interviews and record reviews revealed that interventions and timely follow-ups were inconsistently documented, contributing to the deficiency. Resident 38, who has type 1 diabetes mellitus and other health conditions, experienced fluctuating blood sugar levels. On multiple occasions, her blood sugar dropped to dangerously low levels, yet there was no documentation of interventions or physician notifications. Similarly, resident 22, with type 2 diabetes and other serious health issues, had several high blood sugar readings without any record of physician notification. Resident 3, also with type 2 diabetes, had high blood sugar levels recorded without any documented physician contact. Resident 20, who is severely cognitively impaired, had high blood sugar levels without physician notification as well. The facility lacked a written policy on hypoglycemia management or diabetic care, relying instead on standing orders that were not reviewed by the current DON. Interviews with staff, including the ADON, revealed inconsistencies in the process for managing low or high blood sugar levels, with some staff unsure of the facility's policy. The deficiency was further highlighted by the lack of documentation of physician notifications for numerous blood sugar readings outside the normal range.
Removal Plan
- Diabetic residents #3, #20, #22, and #38 who receive insulin will be managed with the glycemic management protocol given by the medical directors' guidelines.
- Nurses (RN and LPN) as well as medication aides have been educated on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia protocols.
- Nurses are to contact each individual residents' provider in event of a low or high blood sugar reading.
- Nurses were educated to document interventions for low or high blood sugar within the resident's EMR.
- Nurses have been educated on the importance of following each individual resident's guidelines given by the resident's medical provider to properly manage diabetes.
- Nursing staff education was completed by the DON and ADON to ensure those who are currently working are providing appropriate glycemic care and the steps to follow in the event of a low or high blood sugar reading.
- Glycemic management protocol instructs that the nurse on duty will contact the residents' provider during clinical hours or their hospital on-call provider after business hours.
- All nurses and medication aides not on shift will be educated prior to them coming on shift.
- All nurses and medications aides were educated on glycemic management protocols.
- Any concerns will be reported to the charge nurse, director of nursing, infection preventionist, and/or administrator immediately and addressed in facility QAPI.
Failure to Ensure Proper Sanitation Levels in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to ensure that staff were able to verify the chemical sanitation level required to sanitize the dishes used for preparation and serving residents' food. This deficiency was identified through observations, interviews, and record reviews. The survey revealed that the dishwasher's chemical sanitation was not functioning, and staff were not aware of any process to follow when this occurred. Additionally, staff could not accurately verify the chemical sanitation level of the dishwasher due to the use of expired test strips. During the survey, it was observed that the sanitizing testing strips located by the three-compartment sink had expired. Interviews with dietary staff confirmed that these expired strips were being used to test the sanitizing solution, which was not at the correct parts per million (PPM) for effective sanitization. The Nutrition and Food Services Supervisor confirmed that the test strips were outdated and that there were no other test strips available for use. Furthermore, the dishwasher sanitizer was tested and found to be insufficient, with a reading of 10 ppm instead of the required 50 ppm. The deficiency was further compounded by the lack of awareness among staff regarding the expiration of test strips and the proper procedures to follow when the dishwasher was not functioning correctly. The provider's policies and procedures for sanitizing food contact surfaces and warewashing were not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the expired test strips and the inadequate sanitizing solution levels. This failure increased the potential risk of foodborne illnesses for the entire resident population who received meals prepared in the kitchen and served to the residents.
Removal Plan
- Provide dishwasher manufacturer manual and disinfectant information to support instructions are being followed and appropriate sanitation is occurring.
- Use disposable paper plates, cups, and silverware until dishwasher is running appropriately.
- Place new non-expired strips in for the 3 comp sink.
- Remove all expired strips in kitchen.
- Wash all dishes in the 3-comp sink until dishwasher is fixed to verify levels.
- Implement the use of a Monitoring Use of Ecolab disinfectant Test Strips form for staff to sign off on expiration date of a cartridge when replaced and label in the cartridge holder on the wall.
- Complete education with all dietary staff on proper procedure for non-working dishwasher and education on non-expired test strips with return demonstration.
- Educate all staff via PCC Communications that kitchen staff must ensure all chemical test strips are not expired for the dishwasher and the 3 comp sink.
- Add to the TELS Service Provider a task for Director of Environmental Services to monitor weekly if a cartridge is near expiration and needs replacement.
- Contact EcoLab to fix dishwasher. In the meantime, try a new bucket of Ultra San Ecolab 5 gallon liquid sanitizer in the dishwasher and retest.
Dishwasher Temperature Noncompliance
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to maintain the dishwasher wash cycle temperature at a minimum of 120 degrees Fahrenheit as required by the manufacturer's manual. Observations and interviews revealed that the dishwasher's wash cycle temperatures were consistently below the required threshold, with recorded temperatures ranging from 100 to 115 degrees Fahrenheit over several days. There were also numerous instances where wash, rinse, and chemical sanitation level checks were missing. The facility's dishwasher was serviced monthly by a vendor, but the issue persisted, and the administrator was not notified of the low-temperature readings. Interviews with dietary staff confirmed that the dishwasher's external thermometer readings matched those of a thermometer run through the dishwasher, both indicating temperatures below the required 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The dietary aide acknowledged that the wash temperature should be 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Despite the lack of gastrointestinal illness reported in the past three months, the administrator expected staff to report low-temperature readings, which did not occur. A review of the ECOLAB service report and the facility's cleaning policy revealed discrepancies in temperature requirements. The ECOLAB report noted a wash temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit and advised monitoring for compliance. The facility's policy inaccurately stated that the dishwasher, a chemical sanitizing machine, required temperatures between 90 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit, conflicting with the manufacturer's specification of a minimum of 120 degrees Fahrenheit.
Removal Plan
- Dietary staff were instructed to use paper plates and bowls and to use the three-compartment sink for cleaning and sanitizing of all utensils/pots/pans, etc. that are not disposable.
- Administrator met with Dietary staff and reviewed the policy and procedure on the use of the three-compartment sink as well as instructions located above the three-sink area.
- Administrator spoke with the representative from ECO Lab concerning this noncompliance. Recommendation to install a booster water heater to the current dishwasher unit.
- Administrator spoke with [Name] from [Name] Heating and Cooling and arranged for a service call to complete wiring for the installation of the booster water heater.
- [Name] Heating and Cooling presented to facility. Conversation was held with [Name] from [Name] Heating and Cooling and [Name] from ECO Lab via phone. [Name] from ECO Lab and [Name] from [Name] Heating and Cooling will be installing the booster water heater.
- Administrator completed and implemented new Dishwasher Temperature Policy and Low-Temperature Dishwasher Chart.
- Dietary Staff mandatory education will be held to review the Dishwasher Temperature Policy and Procedure as well as the Low-Temperature Dishwasher Chart.
- Daily audits to ensure compliance with the dishwasher temperature will be completed by this Administrator and will report findings to the QAPI Committee. Following continuous compliance, daily audits will change to weekly audits. The continuation of audits will be reviewed monthly during QAPI Committee meetings.
Inadequate Supervision Leads to Resident Self-Harm
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to provide adequate supervision for a resident to prevent actions of self-harm. The resident was observed in his room with multiple open areas on his bilateral lower legs, some of which were actively bleeding, while holding a sharp instrument. Staff interviews revealed that they were aware the resident had various sharp tools in his possession and used these sharps to cut himself to remove bugs he believed were under his skin. The resident's care plan allowed him to have sharps in his possession to remove perceived bugs from his skin. The resident had a history of picking at his skin and cutting himself, believing there were bugs under his skin. He had been seen by a behavioral counselor due to suicidal ideations and hallucinations. Despite this, the resident was allowed to keep sharps in his room, and staff were aware of his behavior but did not adequately supervise or intervene to prevent self-harm. Interviews with staff indicated that the resident was independent, allowed to leave the premises, and would purchase items, including sharps, from a store. The resident's care plan documented his behavioral symptoms, including cutting and picking at his skin, and allowed him to keep sharps in his room. The care plan noted that the resident declined to follow physician-recommended advice and would not allow nurses to care for his open areas. Staff were aware of the resident's behavior and the presence of sharps in his room, but there was no inventory or tracking of the sharps, and the resident's wounds were not regularly documented or treated by nursing staff.
Removal Plan
- All sharps have been removed from Resident 20's room.
- Psychiatry, primary care provider and counselor have been notified for guidance in managing any adverse behavioral changes.
- Resident 20 has been re-educated on hand hygiene, sharps in his room, infection prevention to include covering wounds.
- Updates to the care plan include removing sharps, offering tubi-grips for arms and lower legs for covering of wounds when leaving his room, handwashing education, wound assessment completed, one-hour check while in the facility for behaviors given resident psychiatric history then re-evaluate.
- Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health in Nursing Facilities contacted with expected response.
- Director of nursing spoke to Resident 20 about dressing changes.
- Resident agreed to let nursing staff change dressing twice a day.
- Nursing staff will monitor for any signs of infection during dressing changes and notify the physician if any noticed. These will be documented on Resident 20's treatment.
- Nursing will remove soiled towels and washcloths when in his room providing dressing changes. This has been included in the treatment plan and added to the certified nursing assistant (CNA) flowsheet.
- Resident was informed that he would not need to buy wound/dressing supplies.
- Sharps removed from resident 20's room.
- All other current resident rooms were checked for sharps and any of concern were removed.
- Discussed with Resident 20 that his bags would be checked upon return from shopping.
- Resident signed previous acknowledgment form that he agreed to staff removing sharps that he may bring back.
- Staff will conduct random room checks and will chart in Resident 20's chart as a treatment.
- This has been added to Resident 20's treatment plan and CNA flowsheet.
- Added a treatment order for nursing documentation for behavior/mood of resident 20.
- Resident 20's behavior documentation will be reviewed at interdisciplinary team (IDT) meetings and as needed with adjustments to care/treatment plan as warranted.
- Admission packet updated regarding review of sharps for safety.
- Resident 20's primary contacts have been re-educated on notifying staff prior to bringing/getting sharps items to resident via email.
- Resident 20 has been re-educated on proper hand hygiene for infection prevention and sharps.
- Staff have been re-educated on sharps in rooms and planned review of infection prevention practices related to transmission through OnShift.
- They receive this education annually at minimum.
- A skills fair reviewing infection prevention is scheduled and annually for staff.
- Sharps restriction added to admissions packet.
- Staff re-educated on infection prevention practices and safety of all residents related to sharps in resident rooms.
- Staff were educated through onshift message about the removal of sharps for any resident.
- Additional education provided to nursing staff related to resident 20 returning from shopping, the need to look in resident 20's bags for any sharp objects that staff would need to remove and secure in the medication room, staff will reiterate to resident that he is not able to have those items in his room.
- PRN treatment order added to check bags upon returning from shopping outings.
- Staff will also be educated on the random room checks that will be conducted on Resident 20's room for sharps found, those items will be removed and secured in the medication room.
- Treatment order added to document these random room checks for Resident 20, also added to CNA flowsheet to check room twice a day.
Resident Elopement and Fall Risk Management Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The report details a deficiency involving the elopement of a resident with severe cognitive impairment from a long-term care facility. The resident, who had a history of elopement and was assessed as a high risk for elopement, managed to leave the facility without staff knowledge. The resident was wearing a wander guard, a device intended to prevent such incidents, but there was no documentation of its functionality being checked as required. The elopement was not immediately detected, and the resident was found outside the facility and returned after a significant delay. Another deficiency involved a resident with cognitive impairment and a history of falls who was found on the floor, naked and covered in feces, after a call light went unanswered for an extended period. The resident had a history of falls and required assistance for all activities of daily living. Despite this, the call light system, which should have alerted staff to the resident's needs, was not responded to in a timely manner. The resident's care plan did not adequately address her high fall risk, and staff failed to anticipate her needs, leading to multiple falls. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to policies regarding resident safety and monitoring. Staff were not consistently checking the functionality of safety devices like wander guards, and there was a failure to respond to call lights promptly. The facility's policies on monitoring high-risk residents and ensuring their safety were not effectively implemented, contributing to the deficiencies observed.
Removal Plan
- A message was sent to all employees that summarized the education summary of elopement. This serves as the immediate education for all employees. If staff are not able to complete education, they will be required to complete the make-up prior to their next shift.
- RN S was educated on the process for calling DON/Administrator immediately when resident safety is at risk-including elopements. The nurse was also educated on the next step of the policy to initiate a head count of all residents when a door alarm is sounded with no explanation.
- Certified nursing assistant (CNA) T was noted to have missed a toileting round of resident 3. This would have decreased the time of the residents' elopement. The CNA T received a final corrective action for lack of rounding during this shift. This standard will be upheld for any employees that are found to have failed to complete their rounding as ordered/recommended.
- All staff were educated on the importance of rounding on all residents multiple times a shift. Residents with high fall and elopement to chart in the hallways so residents can be in eye site.
- All staff were educated on utilizing our call system as all exit doors are on the call system to notify all staff if an exit door is alarm on the scrolling screen and the radios.
- Assessment of resident was completed, and vital signs taken.
- An elopement drill was completed with day shift. Education was provided to staff involved with elopement.
- A potential elopement alert was initiated due to a phone call from someone in the community stating a resident was outdoors near [NAME] Road. Staff responded to code and facility did head count and everyone was accounted for.
- Hallway and department education is being completed with all staff regarding elopement processes and policy review. Elopement policy/procedure was reviewed, explained what an elopement is, who is considered an elopement risk, steps to take when a potential elopement occurs, who to notify if a resident does elope and how to respond to door alarms and completing head counts if no residents were found when alarm was responded to.
- Resident 3's physician was out to facility and updated again on recent elopement events. Resident 3's physician ordered lab work-up on him as this an increase in his normal behaviors. He also would like an update on how he is doing.
- Elopement Drills will be completed weekly x4. These will be completed on shifts, different days of the week and different locations within the building. Then every other week x 4 weeks.
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse by Co-Resident
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to protect two residents from abuse by another resident, leading to a deficiency. Resident 4 was observed inappropriately touching Resident 1, who has severe cognitive impairment due to dementia and psychosis, and Resident 2, who has dementia and amnesia. Both residents were unable to consent or defend themselves. Despite these incidents, the care plans for Residents 1 and 2 were not updated to reflect that they had been victims of inappropriate touching. Interviews with staff revealed that Resident 4 had a pattern of inappropriate behavior, including touching other residents' thighs and breasts. Staff members, including a registered nurse and certified nursing assistants, reported these incidents to the charge nurse and administration. However, the facility's response was inadequate, as the care plans for the affected residents were not updated, and there was a lack of immediate action to prevent further incidents. The facility's policy on abuse and neglect requires prompt investigation and reporting of such incidents, as well as immediate action to prevent further abuse. However, the facility did not adhere to these procedures, as evidenced by the lack of updated care plans and insufficient measures to protect the residents from further abuse by Resident 4. This failure to follow policy and ensure resident safety resulted in a deficiency being cited by the surveyors.
Removal Plan
- 30-minute checks on resident 4 initiated to ensure the safety of all residents.
- Medical director discontinued the use of Sildenafil and will monitor the use of other medications that could lead to sexual temptations.
- Resident 4 was scheduled to be evaluated by a psychiatry provider to rule out dementia or other medical conditions that could cause the more frequent sexual behaviors.
- Resident 4 was seen by a psychiatry provider.
- Care plans have been updated.
- Education was provided to all staff.
- Managers will provide the education to staff that were not in the building and staff will be required to receive the education before they start their next shift.
- All staff will continue to monitor behaviors and safety for all residents.
- Interventions in place will be assessed and will be modified if needed to make sure the issue is being resolved appropriately.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
