Good Samaritan Society Corsica
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Good Samaritan Society Corsica has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families, sitting solidly in the middle range of nursing homes. It ranks #9 out of 95 facilities in South Dakota, placing it in the top half for quality, and is the only option in Douglas County. The facility shows an improving trend, with issues decreasing from four in 2023 to two in 2024. Staffing is also a strong point, with a 4 out of 5 star rating, a turnover rate of 43% that is below the state average, and more RN coverage than 87% of facilities, which helps ensure better care. However, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident who was injured by a broken heat register and another resident who did not receive proper care due to staff not following non-weightbearing orders, indicating areas that need attention. Additionally, the facility has incurred $8,190 in fines, which is average compared to others in the state.
- Trust Score
- B
- In South Dakota
- #9/95
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near South Dakota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $8,190 in fines. Higher than 50% of South Dakota facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for South Dakota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below South Dakota average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near South Dakota avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provide failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (7) had a care plan that indicated the use of a Thera bath paraffin wax mach...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (7)...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
4 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, closed record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure environmental precaution...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the provider failed to ensure four of four staff members (licensed practical nurse N, and three unidentified staff members) addressed one of one sam...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to adequately manage pain for one of one ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
1. Observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 5:10 p.m. with LPN H while performing a blood glucose check for resident 23 revealed:
*Without removing her soided gloves, she picked up the supplies she had...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2022
6 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the provider failed to ensure one of fourteen sampled residents (186) receiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure accountability for controlled m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure integrated plans of care had been developed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, policy review, and record review, the provider failed to implement an effective antibiotic stewardship program. Findings include:
1. Interview on 1/20/21 at 3:52 p.m. with infectio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
4. Observation and interview on 1/20/22 at 11:41 a.m. with environmental services technician J revealed she:
*Was cleaning resident 22's room, who was positive for CRE.
-There was a sign adjacent to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to ensure all of their unvaccinated staff had been routinely tested per current recommendations and guidance for COVID-19, duri...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 43% turnover. Below South Dakota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 12 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Good Samaritan Society Corsica's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Good Samaritan Society Corsica an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within South Dakota, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Good Samaritan Society Corsica Staffed?
CMS rates Good Samaritan Society Corsica's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the South Dakota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Good Samaritan Society Corsica?
State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at Good Samaritan Society Corsica during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 10 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Good Samaritan Society Corsica?
Good Samaritan Society Corsica is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 41 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CORSICA, South Dakota.
How Does Good Samaritan Society Corsica Compare to Other South Dakota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Dakota, Good Samaritan Society Corsica's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Good Samaritan Society Corsica?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Good Samaritan Society Corsica Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Good Samaritan Society Corsica has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in South Dakota. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Good Samaritan Society Corsica Stick Around?
Good Samaritan Society Corsica has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for South Dakota nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Good Samaritan Society Corsica Ever Fined?
Good Samaritan Society Corsica has been fined $8,190 across 1 penalty action. This is below the South Dakota average of $33,161. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Good Samaritan Society Corsica on Any Federal Watch List?
Good Samaritan Society Corsica is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.