OAKVIEW TERRACE

510 E 8TH ST, FREEMAN, SD 57029 (605) 925-4000
Non profit - Corporation 45 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
81/100
#11 of 95 in SD
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Oakview Terrace in Freeman, South Dakota, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is recommended and above average in quality. It ranks #11 out of 95 facilities in South Dakota, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 3 in Hutchinson County, meaning only one local option is better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 27%, significantly lower than the state average of 49%, but there were also some concerns about compliance. Notably, a serious incident occurred where a resident was transferred improperly, leading to a fall and a fractured hip, and another resident developed a pressure sore while sitting for extended periods in a chair. Overall, while there are strengths, such as staffing quality, families should be aware of the increasing number of serious issues.

Trust Score
B+
81/100
In South Dakota
#11/95
Top 11%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below South Dakota's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
○ Average
$20,726 in fines. Higher than 69% 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
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (27%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (27%)

    21 points below South Dakota average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

Federal Fines: $20,726

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Jun 2025 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge tracking ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) discharge tracking record assessment was completed within the required timeframe for one of one sampled resident (12) after her death in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of resident 12's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *She died in the facility on [DATE]. *A significant change MDS had been completed on [DATE]. *A quarterly MDS had been completed on [DATE]. *No MDS tracking record had been completed when resident 12 died. 2. Interview on [DATE] at 2:14 p.m. with MDS/ registered nurse (RN) C revealed she: *Was responsible for completing and transmitting the MDS data for all residents. *Expected that resident 12 would have had an MDS tracking record assessment completed when she died, and confirmed that one had not been completed. *Tracked the MDS assessments that would need to have been completed by utilizing the dashboard alerts in the PointClickCare EMR system. *Stated it had been an oversight that resident 12's death in the facility tracking MDS had been missed. 3. Interview on [DATE] at 12:39 p.m. with director of nursing B revealed she expected one hundred percent compliance with the timely completion and submission of MDS data. 4. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual revealed that the death in facility tracking record assessment was to have been completed no later than seven days after a resident's death in the facility. Review of the provider's [DATE] LTC (Long Term Care) Resident-Assessment-Instrument (RAI)- System policy revealed: *The Assessment Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) complete timely assessments and reviews in accordance with the CMS RAI Version 3.0 Manual. *Tracking Records - Must be completed for any resident in a Medicare or Medicaid certified facility regardless of payment source: . Death in Facility : Within 7 [seven] days after the resident's death. *The Assessment Coordinator is responsible for electronically transmitting encoded, accurate and complete MDS data . Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' [DATE] Version 1.18.1 Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual revealed death in facility tracking records: *Must be completed when the resident dies in the facility or when on LOA [leave of absence]. *Must be completed within 7 days after the resident's death .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the provider failed to ensure one of one resident (7) who received an injectable diabetic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the provider failed to ensure one of one resident (7) who received an injectable diabetic medication had that medication coded accurately on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. 1. Interview on 6/24/25 at 2:45 p.m. with resident 7 revealed: *She had diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood). *She received an injectable medication weekly to treat her diabetes. *Her blood sugars were monitored by staff. 2. Review of resident 7's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *She had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. *She had a diagnosis of diabetes. *Her blood sugars were monitored weekly by staff. *A 1/19/25 physician's order for Dulaglutide Subcutaneous Solution Auto-Injector Inject 0.5 ml [milliliters] subcutaneously one time a day every Sun. That order was discontinued on 3/23/25. *A 3/23/25 physician's order for, Dulaglutide Subcutaneous Solution Auto-Injector [an injectable medication to treat diabetes] Inject 0.75 ml [milliliters] subcutaneously one time a day every Sun [Sunday]. *Item N0350A of section N Medications of her 4/1/25 quarterly MDS (a tool used to evaluate a resident's health status and to develop an individualized care plan to manage the resident's care needs) assessment indicated she had received insulin injections seven times during the seven-day look-back period (the time period over which the resident's condition or status is captured by the MDS assessment) of that MDS. -Dulaglutide's medication classification was glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, which was not a form of insulin. It was administered weekly on Sundays, not daily. 3. Record review and interview on 6/26/25 at 8:51 a.m. with registered nurse (RN) I regarding resident 7 revealed: *The resident had a physician's order for dulaglutide to treat her diabetes, which was to be administered weekly on Sundays. *RN I verified that dulaglutide was not a form of insulin. *There were no current physician orders for insulin for resident 7. 4. Interview and record review on 6/26/25 at 12:05 p.m. with MDS/RN C revealed: *She had completed resident 7's most recent MDS assessment on 4/1/25. *She verified she had documented in that MDS that resident 7 had received an insulin injection seven times during the seven-day look-back period. *MDS/RN C stated she thought dulaglutide was a form of insulin. *MDS/RN C verified resident 7 had received one injection of dulaglutide in the seven-day look-back period. *She thought she entered dulaglutide as an insulin on the MDS because it was documented under the insulin administration tab in the medication administration record (MAR). She was unsure why she documented that resident 7 had received seven injections during that seven-day look-back period. *She agreed she had made an error in the resident's MDS assessment documentation. 5. Interview on 6/26/25 at 12:09 p.m. with director nursing (DON) B revealed: *She confirmed resident 7 was on dulaglutide injections weekly and had not been on insulin during the look-back period of her 4/1/25 MDS assessment. *She verified the above error in the documentation within resident 7's 4/1/25 quarterly MDS assessment. *She expected the MDS assessment documentation to be completely accurate upon submission. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' October 2023 Version 1.18.1 Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual regarding insulin documentation in section N revealed: *Review the resident's medication administration records for the 7-day look-back period. *Determine if the resident received insulin injections during the look-back period. *Enter in Item N0350A, the number of days during the 7-day look-back period (or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days) that insulin injections were received. Review of the provider's 1/15/25 LTC [long-term care] Resident-Assessment-Instrument (RAI)-System Standard policy revealed: *[Provider name] will ensure 'the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) is used, in accordance with specified format and timeframes, in conducting comprehensive assessments as part of an ongoing process through which the facility identifies each resident's preferences and goals of care, functional and health status, strength and needs, as well as offering guidance for further assessment once problems have been identified.' *The quarterly review assessment is used to track a resident's status between comprehensive assessments to ensure critical indicators of gradual change in a resident's status are monitored.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

7. On 6/26/25 at 11:15 a.m., a request was made to DON B for the Northview and Southview refrigerator temperature logs for April, May, and June 2025. The logs for May 2025 were unavailable for review....

Read full inspector narrative →
7. On 6/26/25 at 11:15 a.m., a request was made to DON B for the Northview and Southview refrigerator temperature logs for April, May, and June 2025. The logs for May 2025 were unavailable for review. 8. Review of the Southview Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Forms revealed: *REPORT ALL OUT OF RANGE TEMPS [temperatures] TO THE DIETARY MANAGER AT TIME NOTED. *The refrigerator range was listed as 35-40 F, and the freezer range was 0 OR LESS. *In April 2025: -There were 15 days with no refrigerator or freezer AM temperatures recorded. -There were no PM temperatures recorded. -The form indicated the refrigerator was out of the range six days. *In June 2025: -There were 14 days with no refrigerator or freezer AM temperature recorded. -There were no PM temperatures recorded. -On 6/3/25, the refrigerator was out of the range indicated on the form. *There were no documented interventions for out-of-range temperatures documented on the form 9. Review of the Northview Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Forms revealed: *In April 2025: -There were five days with no refrigerator or freezer AM temperatures documented. -There were 12 days with no refrigerator or freezer PM temperatures documented. -On 4/2/25, the refrigerator and freezer were documented as being over the temperature range indicated on the form. -All other documented refrigerator temperatures were below the refrigerator temperature range. *There were no interventions for the out-of-range temperatures documented on the form. *In June 2025: -On 6/19/25, no refrigerator or freezer AM temperature was documented. -There were eight days with no refrigerator or freezer PM temperatures documented. -On 6/2025, the freezer was documented as being over the temperature range indicated on the form. -There were 33 documented refrigerator temperatures below the refrigerator temperature range. *There were no interventions for out-of-range temperatures documented on the form. 10. Interview on 6/25/25 at 10:46 a.m. with food services supervisor G regarding the unit refrigerator and freezers revealed: *He expected the kitchenette refrigerator behind the nurses' station and the Northview refrigerator temperatures to have been monitored by the nursing staff. *The dietary staff provided snacks and beverages for the residents upon request. *Opened food items were to be dated and labeled by the dietary staff when they were removed from the kitchen. *He expected the nursing staff to date and label food items when they opened them on the unit. *He expected resident's food items not to be stored in the Southview refrigerator. 11. Interview on 6/25/25 at 4:20 p.m. with director of quality and infection control E regarding the unit refrigerators revealed: *She expected the Southview refrigerator and freezer not to have been used to store resident food. -That refrigerator had been put out of service and was to have been removed from the Southview unit. -She was unaware that the refrigerator contained an open applesauce dated Best by 2/26/25, and that the freezer contained an open ice cream container labeled with resident 38's name. *She expected the nursing staff to monitor and document the refrigerator and freezer temperatures of the Northview refrigerator and freezer twice daily. *Nursing staff were also responsible for dating and labeling food items when they were opened and discarding those items when they were spoiled. She was not sure how many days the food items could remain in the refrigerator safely. 12. Interview on 6/26/25 at 8:17 a.m. with certified nursing assistant (CNA) U regarding the Northview refrigerator revealed: *The Northview refrigerator and freezer were locked because they were in the memory care unit (an area where specialized care is provided in a structured, safe, and supportive environment to meet the unique needs of residents with significant memory and cognitive decline, that is secured to minimize unsafe wandering), and residents might have opened the refrigerator and taken items that did not belong to them. *The CNAs were responsible for monitoring and documenting the temperatures of the refrigerator and the freezer twice a day. *The kitchen delivered requested food items to the unit from the main kitchen. Those items were to be labeled and dated by the kitchen staff if they were already open. Nursing staff were to label and date food items when they opened them on the unit. *She would have notified the nurse if there was a problem with the refrigerator. 13. Interview on 6/26/25 at 12:09 p.m. with director of nursing (DON) B revealed: *The nursing staff was responsible for monitoring the unit refrigerator and freezer temperatures during the day, and the dietary staff was responsible for the temperature monitoring in the evening. *She expected that food placed in the unit refrigerators would be labeled with the resident's name and dated. *Food brought in for a resident was to be disposed of three days after opening. *She did not know the expectation for how food that was brought in for a resident was to be stored in the freezer. *She expected the nursing staff would have removed the food from the refrigerator that was not labeled with a resident identification, date, or was spoiled. *She expected maintenance be notified of temperatures that were out of range. *She expected an intervention to be documented on the temperature form if an out-of-range temperature was identified. *She verified there were multiple temperatures out of their policy's identified range between April 2025 and June 2025 with no documented interventions on the forms. Review of the provider's June 2025 Fridges policy revealed: *All refrigerators and freezers have thermometers and temperature is documented at least 1x [one time] daily. *Maintenance is to be notified if [the] refrigerator is above 40°F and freezer temperature is above 0°F. *Fridge temperatures should be between 40°F and 33°F. Freezer temperatures should be 0°F or below. *Food is served as soon as possible. All leftover food is discarded after three days (72 hours). Review of the provider's April 2025 Refrigerator Use policy revealed: *Food needing refrigeration will be labeled with the resident's name and dated and stored in the facility's refrigerator in the kitchenette behind the nurses station. Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure: *Food was stored labeled, dated, and disposed of according to the provider's policy in three of three unit refrigerators and freezers. *Temperatures were monitored and addressed when out of range according to the provider's policy in three of three unit refrigerators and freezers. Findings include: 1. Observation on 6/24/25 at 8:58 a.m. of the Southview refrigerator and freezer revealed: *The posted June 2025 refrigerator and freezer temperature log was missing several temperature entries. *On the left side of the refrigerator was an external digital thermometer with an internal probe. The external digital display was not functional. *Inside the refrigerator, a thermometer read 42 degrees Fahrenheit (F). *The refrigerator contained: -A plastic tub with an open one-pound block of butter covered with tin foil, which was not labeled or dated. -An open container of applesauce dated Best by 2/26/25, that was labeled Act. *Inside the freezer, a thermometer read 22°F. *The freezer contained an open container of chocolate peanut butter ice cream labeled with resident 38's name and dated 6/22. 2. Observation on 6/24/25 at 10:10 a.m. of the Northview refrigerator and freezer revealed: *It contained two locks. The freezer was locked, but the refrigerator was not locked. *The posted June 2025 refrigerator and freezer temperature log was missing several entries. 3. Observation on 6/25/25 at 8:03 a.m. of the room behind the nurses' station labeled Clean Utility revealed: *There was an ice machine and a refrigerator in the room. *The June 2025 Kitchenette Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature form posted on the refrigerator door had areas for the temperatures of the refrigerator and freezer to be documented twice daily, once in the AM (morning), and once in the PM (evening). *The Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature form indicated the temperature range for the refrigerator was 35 to 40 [degrees] F and the range for the freezer was 0 [degrees] F or less. -There were no documented temperatures in the AM areas for the refrigerator or freezer on June 5, 7, 8, and 15. -The documented refrigerator temperatures were below 32 degrees Fahrenheit 14 times. -The refrigerator temperatures were documented above 41 degrees F on June 18 at 45 degrees F, 19 at 42 degrees F, 21 at 42 degrees F, and 23 at 42 degrees F. *Inside the refrigerator was: -A Ziploc bag of crumbled dry muffins that was not labeled with a name or a date. -A plastic container that was labeled with a resident's name but did not have a date on it. -A Cool Whip container that was labeled with resident 6's name and the date 6/12/25 that had mixed fruit with a layer of mold growing on the surface of the fruit. *Inside the freezer there was an unlabeled and undated partial 1.5-quart container of vanilla ice cream that had appeared to have been melted and refrozen due to the surface of the inside of the container was covered in clear crystals. *There were no interventions for the out-of-range temperatures documented on the form 4. Review of the April and May 2025 Kitchenette Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature forms revealed: *None of the documented refrigerator temperatures for the month of April 2025 were above 30 degrees F. *All but the 5/4/25 documented refrigerator temperatures in May 2025 were 32 degrees F or less. *There were no documented interventions for the out-of-range temperatures documented on the form. 5. Interview on 6/26/25 at 8:08 a.m. with registered nurse (RN) I revealed: *She was not sure who was responsible for monitoring the temperatures of the unit refrigerators and freezers. *She verified there were out of range temperatures documented for the kitchenette refrigerator freezer in June 2025. *She agreed there were items in the refrigerator and freezer that were not labeled with the resident's name and date when the item was opened or placed in the refrigerator. *She verified there was mold on the fruit in the refrigerator, indicated she would not serve that fruit, and that it should be disposed of, but did not dispose of it at that time. *She verified crystals had formed on the ice cream, and it appeared as the ice cream had been melted and refrozen. *She indicated she would notify maintenance if she was notified the refrigerator or freezer temperature was out-of-range. *She was not aware if maintenance had been notified there were documented out-of-range temperatures. 6. Interview on 6/26/25 at 8:41 a.m. with certified nursing assistant (CNA) M revealed: *She thought the kitchen staff was responsible for monitoring the unit refrigerator and freezers. *When residents had food brought in from an outside source, staff members were to label the food with the resident's name and date before placing it in the unit refrigerator freezers. *Both the CNAs and the kitchen staff were responsible for checking the food in the refrigerator for spoiled or outdated foods. *She did not know what she was to do if she noticed the refrigerator or freezer temperature was out of range.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to complete a baseline care plan and provide a written...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to complete a baseline care plan and provide a written summary of the baseline care plan to the resident or their representative for seven of seven recently admitted sampled residents (11, 14, 17, 37, 38, 40 and 195) within 48 hours of their admission to the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of resident 11's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her baseline care plan revealed her preferred wake time had been left blank. *There was no documentation that indicated the resident's baseline care plan was developed and reviewed with her, her representative, or that they had been provided or offered a copy of her baseline care plan within 48 hours of her admission. 2. Review of resident 37's EMR revealed: *He was admitted on [DATE]. *His baseline care plan did not include his dietary orders. His preferred wake time, sleep time, and bathing preferences had been left blank. *There was no documentation that indicated the resident's baseline care plan was developed and reviewed with her, her representative, or that they had been provided or offered a copy of her baseline care plan within 48 hours of her admission. 3. Review of resident 38's EMR revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her baseline care plan did not include initial goals or a discharge plan, and her preferred wake time had been left blank. *There was no documentation that indicated the resident's baseline care plan was developed and reviewed with her, her representative, or that they had been provided or offered a copy of her baseline care plan within 48 hours of her admission. 4. Review of resident 40's EMR revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her baseline care plan did not include initial goals or a discharge plan, and her preferred wake and sleep times had been left blank. *There was no documentation that indicated the resident's baseline care plan was developed and reviewed with her, her POA, or that they had been provided or offered a copy of her baseline care plan within 48 hours of her admission. 5. Review of resident 14's EMR revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her baseline care plan did not include the date when the baseline care plan was completed, or by whom. *There was no documentation that indicated the resident's baseline care plan was developed with her, her representative, or that they had been provided or offered a copy of her baseline care plan within 48 hours of her admission. 6. Review of resident 17's EMR revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her baseline care plan did not include her preferred wake time, sleep time preference, her bathing preference, her discharge goal, the date when the baseline care plan was completed, or by whom. *There was no documentation that indicated the resident's baseline care plan was developed with her, her representative, or that they had been provided or offered a copy of her baseline care plan within 48 hours of her admission. 7. Review of resident 195's EMR revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her baseline care plan did not include the date when the baseline care plan was completed, or by whom. *There was no documentation that indicated the resident's baseline care plan was developed with her, her representative, or that they had been provided or offered a copy of her baseline care plan within 48 hours of her admission. 8. Interview on 6/25/25 at 2:31 p.m. with director of social services F regarding residents' baseline care plans revealed: *Nursing staff was responsible for completing the residents' baseline care plans when they admitted to the facility. *She expected that all areas within the baseline care plan to be completed. *It was not the provider's process to document when the resident's baseline care plan would have been completed or by whom. *It was not the provider's process to document on the resident's baseline care plan or in the resident's EMR if or when the baseline care plan was reviewed and offered to the resident or the resident's representative. *If the resident representative was not present to be able to review the resident's baseline care plan, the social services department would mail a copy of the baseline care plan to the resident's representative. *She had not documented when she mailed the resident's baseline care plan, or to whom. *She agreed that if she mailed the resident's baseline care plan to the resident's representative, it would not have been available for review within the first 48 hours of the resident's admission. 9. Interview on 6/25/25 at 2:31 p.m. with registered nurse (RN) H regarding residents' baseline care plans revealed: *The nurse was to complete the baseline care plans upon the resident's admission. *She stated the baseline care plans were usually completed within the first few hours of a resident's admission to provide direction for the resident's care needs and preferences, but the baseline care plan must be completed within 48 hours of their admission. *All areas of the baseline care plan were expected to be completed. *She did not review the baseline care plan with the resident or the resident's representative once it was completed. *She did not provide or offer a copy of the baseline care plan to the resident or the resident representative upon completion. *She verified there was no location on the baseline care plan to document when it was completed or by whom. *She did not document in the EMR when the resident's baseline care plan had been completed. 10. Interview on 6/26/25 12:09 p.m. with director of nursing (DON) B regarding baseline care plans revealed: *She expected all areas of the baseline care plan to be completed within 48 hours of a resident's admission. *She agreed without documentation of the date the baseline care plan was completed, there was no way to verify if it was completed within 48 hours of the resident's admission. *She was aware there was no documentation to support that the resident's baseline care plans were reviewed or if a copy was offered to the resident or the resident's representative. Review of the provider's June 2025 Baseline Care Plan policy revealed: *A baseline care plan will be developed within 48 hours of a resident's admission to promote continuity of care and communication among nursing home staff, increase resident safety and safeguard against adverse events that are most likely to occur right after admission; and to ensure the resident and representative, if applicable are informed of the initial plan of delivery of care and services by receiving a written summary of the baseline care plan. *The baseline care plan will include the minimum health care information necessary to properly care for a resident including, but not limited to: 1. Initial goals based on admission orders, 2. physician orders, 3. dietary orders, therapy services, 5. Social services, 6. PASRR [Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review] recommendations, if applicable, 7. Instructions needed to provide effective person-centered care that meets professional standards of quality of care, 8. Address resident safety concerns to prevent decline or injury, 9. Identify needs for supervision, behavioral interventions and assistance with ADL's [activities of daily living] as necessary. *There will be documentation in the clinical record that the baseline care plan was given to the resident and/or representative.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility reported incident (FRI) review, observation, record review, intervi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility reported incident (FRI) review, observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to follow resident's care plans to: *Provide adequate supervision for one of one sampled resident (40) who was left unsupervised in the whirlpool tub by two certified nursing assistants (CNA) (K and Q). *Provide adequate assistance by one of one CNA (S) for one of one sampled resident (38) who fell and sustained an injury and pain that required evaluation at the emergency room. Findings Include: 1. Review of the provider's 4/29/25 SD DOH FRI revealed: *On 4/28/25 at 4:15 p.m., CNAs O and P heard [resident 40] yell Hello from the [whirlpool] tub room, and went into [the whirlpool] tub room and noted [resident 40] sitting in the whirlpool [tub] without any staff member present. *CNA O immediately assisted resident 40 out of the [whirlpool] tub and back to her room. *The provider's investigation revealed that CNA K had initiated resident 40's bath and then had asked CNA Q to finish providing that bath. CNA Q then requested Charge Nurse [registered nurse (RN) R] tell CNA P to go into the [whirlpool] tub room to sit with [resident 40]. *CNA Q kept moving assuming she [RN R] had passed on that message [to CNA P]. *CNA O indicated she knew [CNA K] gave [resident 40] a bath and that [CNA K's] scheduled shift ended at 3:30 p.m. *When interviewed regarding that bath, resident 40 indicated, It was wonderful! I soaked and I enjoyed it! *When asked if she had to wait long after she called out, resident 40 stated, No, what [when] I was ready, I yelled Hello and a nice young lady came [in] right away. * .Poor communication and multiple assumptions amongst multiple staff impacted this situation. *CNA Q was the last staff member in the [whirlpool] tub room with [resident 40] and should not have left [resident 40] alone in the [whirlpool] tub room . 2. Interview on 6/24/25 3:40 p.m. with resident 40 and her power of attorney (POA) revealed: *Resident 40 recalled the above event when she was left alone in the whirlpool tub and stated, I loved it. *She indicated that she had been wearing a plastic safety strap and had not been worried or afraid when she was left alone. She had requested to soak in the whirlpool tub, and the staff had come into the room right away when she called out. *She knew CNA K had to leave that day while she was in the whirlpool tub, and that there had been a miscommunication between the staff about who was going to help her in getting out of the whirlpool tub. *She got herself washed and dressed each day, but was told after the incident on 4/28/25 that someone was supposed to have remained in the whirlpool tub room with her that day. *She had not been left alone in the whirlpool tub before the incident on 4/28/25 or since then. *She stated that she did not want anyone to get in trouble, she loved it there, and that the staff were my little angels. *Her POA stated that she had been informed of the incident, she had no concerns, and that resident 40 had shared with her it was the best bath. 3. Review of resident 40's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her 2/20/25 Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score was 9, which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. *Her 5/20/25 BIMS assessment score was 11, which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. *Her 2/26/25 revised care plan indicated she preferred a shower and required one staff member's assistance to get in and out of the shower, to wash her lower body, back, and hair. *Her 4/28/25 revised care plan indicated she preferred a shower and required one staff member's assistance to get in and out of the whirlpool tub, and to wash her lower body, back, and hair. *Her 5/28/25 revised care plan indicated she preferred a shower and required one staff member's assistance (SBA) [stand by assistance] to get in and out of the whirlpool tub. Once in the whirlpool [tub] [resident 40] is independent with bathing, staff [member] to stay in [the] room and assist as needed and requested by [resident 40]. 4. Observation on 6/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. of the nurses' station and whirlpool tub room revealed: *The whirlpool tub room was located directly across from the nurses' station. *While standing at the furthest point away from that whirlpool tub room, at the nurses' station, the conversation between the staff and the resident in that whirlpool tub room was able to be heard over the noise of the whirlpool jets. 5. Interview on 6/26/25 at 7:45 a.m. with director of nursing (DON) B revealed that CNA Q had resigned and was not available for an interview related to the 4/28/25 incident with resident 40. 6. Interview on 6/26/25 at 10:13 a.m. with CNA K revealed: *On 4/28/25, she had been asked by CNA Q to provide resident 40 with a whirlpool bath. She had started that whirlpool bath; however, her shift ended at 3:30 p.m., and she needed to leave. *CNA K requested that CNA Q finish resident 40's whirlpool bath, and CNA K provided CNA Q with a verbal report in the whirlpool room of what tasks needed to be finished, and that resident 40 had requested to soak in the tub. *CNA K knew that resident 40 liked to take a long bath and indicated that she should not have started a bath that she could not finish before the end of her shift. *CNA K indicated that when she left the whirlpool tub room on 4/28/25, resident 40 was in the whirlpool tub, and CNA Q had agreed to complete resident 40's whirlpool bath; however, CNA K saw CNA Q leave the whirlpool tub room and heard CNA Q state that she would be right back. *CNA K had not worked with CNA Q before that incident and thought that CNA Q would have finished resident 40's whirlpool bath. *CNA K stated that staff members carried walkie-talkies to communicate with each other, but resident 40 had no way to alert staff of her need for assistance, while in the whirlpool, except to yell for help. *CNA K thought that resident 40 was safe to be in the whirlpool tub unattended for a short period because resident 40 was independent with bathing and dressing, did not need physical assistance with bathing while in the whirlpool tub, and had requested to rinse herself off with the hand-held shower. *CNA K could not recall if she had been told before that incident that residents were not to be left alone in the whirlpool tub. 7. Interview on 6/26/25 at 11:40 a.m. with CNA O revealed: *On 4/28/25 she had heard CNA K tell CNA Q that she needed to leave at the end of her shift [3:30 p.m.] and that CNA Q had agreed to complete resident 40's whirlpool bath. *She did not know that CNA K and CNA Q had left resident 40 alone in the whirlpool tub. *She heard someone inside the whirlpool tub room say, Hello, I am done, from the nurses' station. -She stated that resident 40's voice was calm. *When CNA O entered the whirlpool tub room, resident 40 was in the tub and no staff were present. *Resident 40 indicated that she was finished soaking and was ready to get out of the whirlpool tub, and then CNA Q arrived and assisted resident 40 out of the whirlpool tub. *CNA O was trained that for the resident's safety, she was never to leave a resident alone in the whirlpool tub or the shower, even if they were independent or requested to be alone. 8. Interview on 6/26/25 at 12:24 p.m. with DON B and Minimum Data Set (MDS)/ registered nurse (RN) C regarding the incident with resident 40 on 4/28/25 revealed: *MDS/RN C had completed a skin assessment of resident 40 after that bath, and there were no concerns noted. Resident 40 stated she had enjoyed her bath. *DON B expected that the staff would remain in the whirlpool tub room for the entire time any resident was in the whirlpool tub for the resident's safety. *MDS/RN C stated no current resident was independent in the shower or the whirlpool tub. *Resident 40 should not have been left alone in the whirlpool tub. *CNAs were educated during their orientation that they needed to remain in the whirlpool tub room with a resident while they showered or took a bath, and that staff members could use the call light or walkie-talkies to call for help from other staff if needed. 9. Review of the provider's 3/13/25 SD DOH FRI revealed: *Resident 38 was standing at the foot of her bed in front of her dresser when CNA S entered her room. *CNA S walked to [the] head of the bed while resident [38] remained at the foot of the bed, to pull down the sheets. *Resident 38 fell backward without warning and hit the back of her head. *Resident 38 was sent to the emergency department (ED) to be evaluated as she hit the back of her head and edema [swelling] was present . *Resident 38 reported headache, and pain to her head, neck, back, chest and pelvis since falling. *While at the hospital ED resident 38 experienced an episode of hypoxia [low level of oxygen in the body] after IV [intravenous] Fentanyl [a pain medication] with oxygen levels in the 80s and required 5 liters (L) of oxygen by nasal cannula (NC) (a flexible tubing that delivers oxygen through the nose) and returned to the facility on 1L of oxygen by NC. *Resident 38 required SBA [standby assistance of one staff member] with a walker in and out of her room. *CNA [S] should have assisted the resident to a safe position prior to pulling down the sheets in the bed and should not have left resident [38] standing by the dresser . 10. Review of resident 38's EMR revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her 3/11/25 BIMS assessment score was 0, which indicated she was severely cognitively impaired. *Her 12/16/24 revised care plan indicated she required the assistance of one staff member with her walker. Resident 38 does need extra assistance if she is having extra pain and other times she will forget that she needs assistance and [will] get up without assistance. *Her 3/20/25 revised care plan indicated she required SBA of one staff member with her walker . *Her 3/11/25 fall risk assessment indicated she was at high risk for falls and knew her own limits. *A 3/13/25 progress note indicated, Resident [38] was standing by her dresser and fell backwards hitting her head on her the bathroom door. Injuries: edema on the back of her head. 10/10 [ten on a zero to ten pain scale] generalized pain . Resident transferred to ED for evaluation. 11. Observation and interview on 6/24/25 4:08 p.m. with resident 38 revealed: *She was seated in her recliner with her call light next to her. *Her room was arranged as described in the FRI with her dresser at the foot of her bed. When the bathroom door was open, it aligned with the dresser. The room was uncluttered with both a wheelchair and a walker present. *She did not remember falling, did not know what she would use the call light for, and indicated that if she needed something, she would just get up and get it. *She was pleasant, answered basic questions, and denied having any pain. 12. Interview by phone on 6/26/25 at 10:00 a.m. with CNA S revealed: *On 3/13/25, resident 38 was in her room, standing at the foot of her bed, by her dresser with her walker, when CNA S arrived to assist her with getting ready for bed. The dresser drawer was open, and she thought that resident 38 was getting her pajamas from the dresser. *CNA S stated that she had gone to pull back the blankets on the bed when she heard resident 38 fall and hit her head. *Resident 38 was in a lot of pain and called out loudly after she fell. *The nurse came immediately after the resident fell that day and completed an assessment. Resident 38 was sent to the ED for further evaluation. *Resident 38 often got up unassisted. *She had been uncertain if resident 38 was allowed to stand independently at that time. -She had been educated after the resident's 3/13/25 fall that resident 38 required standby assistance and that staff were to remain within arm's reach of the resident when standing with or walking with her. *The level of staff assistance a resident required could be found in the resident's care plan in the EMR. 13. Interview on 6/26/25 at 11:40 a.m. with DON B revealed: *Resident 38 had required standby assistance of one staff member at the time of her 3/13/25 fall. *Resident 38 would often forget that she needed staff assistance and would get up independently. *She expected staff to assist resident 38 to her destination and to remain within arm's reach of her due to resident 38's fall risk. *CNA S should have assisted resident 38 to sit down before she turned back the bed linens that day. *She expected the CNAs to review the resident care plans and to know the level of assistance a resident required when standing or transferring to ensure their safety. 14. Review of the provider's June 2025 Bathing policy revealed: *Ensure the resident's safety during bathing. *Visit with the resident during bathing and keep conversation focused on his/her interests. *Do not leave the resident alone in the shower/tub room. Use the call light if you need assistance. Review of the provider's 10/31/24 LTC (Long Term Care) Falls and Accidents policy revealed: *Supervision/adequate supervision: This determination is based on the individual resident's assessed needs and identified hazards in the resident environment. Adequate supervision may vary from resident to resident and from time to time for the same resident. *All staff will be educated about and have access to care plans which are individualized for each resident . *Based on assessment of fall risk ., staff will implement appropriate individualized, resident-centered interventions to reduce the likelihood of falls . and communicate the risk and interventions to the staff through the plan of care.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure infection control practices wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure infection control practices were followed for: *The storage and handling of a catheter urine drainage bag for one of one sampled resident (11) with a catheter. *The cleaning and disinfecting of shared resident lift equipment by three of three observed certified nursing assistants (CNAs) (L, M, and T) Findings include: 1. Observation on 6/24/25 at 9:38 a.m. of resident 11's room revealed: *A sit-to-stand lift (mechanical lift used to assist from a seated to a standing position) was outside of resident 11's room with a safety sling draped over the top. *A small blue bag was attached to that lift. -There were no disinfectant wipes available to use in the bag. *Resident 11's uncovered catheter bag was hooked on the edge of her trash can which was on the right side of her recliner. 2. Observation on 6/24/25 at 10:32 a.m. outside of resident room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed: *There was a [NAME] Plus sit-to-stand lift with a purple sling draped over the top of it. -There were no disinfectant wipes available to use on that lift. 3. Observation on 6/24/25 at 2:16 p.m. of resident lifts parked in the 300-hall revealed: *The full body mechanical lift (a mechanical lift with a body sling used to lift a person's full body) labeled hoyer 1 had a container of glass cleaner wipes in the bag attached to the lift. -There were no disinfectant wipes available to use in that bag. *The EZ Stand sit-to-stand mechanical lift had a large sling draped over the lift while it was in the hallway -That lift did not have disinfectant wipes available to use on the lift or in the bag attached to it. 4. Observation and interview on 6/24/25 at 3:12 p.m. with resident 11 and CNA/certified medication aide (CMA) J, outside resident 11's room revealed: *There was an orange ribbon symbol under resident 11's nameplate outside her room. CMA/CNA J explained that the orange ribbon indicated that resident 11 had a urinary catheter. *Resident 11 was able to answer simple questions but was not aware of where her urinary catheter drainage bag was stored. *Resident 11's urinary catheter drainage bag was hanging from her trash can. The drainage spout was unhooked from its storage slot and was touching the floor. *CNA/CMA J confirmed that the resident's urinary catheter drainage bag was hanging from the trash can and that the spout was touching the floor. *Without performing hand hygiene (hand washing or the use of hand sanitizer) or putting on a gown CMA/CNA J put on a pair of gloves and, without using a disinfectant, placed the drainage spout back into the storage slot on the urinary catheter drainage bag. *She stated, It [the spout] must have come loose. *She stated that when resident 11 sat in her recliner, they would hang the urinary catheter drainage bag from the trash can to keep it off the floor. They did not use a catheter protective or privacy bag cover when resident 11 was in her room. *CMA/CNA J stated they used the privacy bag attached to the wheelchair to store resident 11's urinary catheter drainage bag when she left her room. *CMA/CNA J removed her gloves and, without completing hand hygiene, she left the residnet's room. 5. Review of resident 11's electronic medical record revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *Her diagnosis included neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. *Her 5/27/25 Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score was 2, which indicated she was severely cognitively impaired. *A 5/20/25 physician's order indicated Foley catheter .only change when compromised or leaking. 6. Observation on 6/25/25 at 7:52 a.m. of the soiled utility room revealed: *There was an EZ Stand sit-to-stand lift with a sling draped over it. *There was a Tollos Steady Aid sit-to-stand lift that did not have disinfectant wipes available to use n the lift. *There was a [NAME] Plus sit-to-stand lift with a sling draped over it. 7. Observation and interview on 6/25/25 at 11:00 a.m. of CNA M and CNA T and resident 11 revealed: *Resident 11's urinary catheter drainage bag was lying on the floor in front of her trash can. *The Tollos Steady Aid sit-to-stand lift was outside her room with the safety sling draped over the top of it. -There were no disinfectant wipes on that lift available to use. *CNA M and CNA T brought the Tollos Steady Aid sit-to stand lift with the sling draped over the top into resident 11's room and put on gowns and gloves. *CNA T confirmed that resident 11's urinary catheter drainage bag was lying on the floor, and with her gloved hands, she then hung the catheter bag on the edge of the trash can. *CNA T stated that when the catheter was attached to resident 11's right leg, they would hang the urinary catheter drainage bag from the trash can, and when the catheter was attached to resident 11's left leg, they would hang it from her chairside table. *CNA M emptied resident 11's urinary catheter drainage bag using a container with graduated measurements on it. *Without changing their gloves, CNA M and CNA T placed the lift safety sling around resident 11, attached that sling to the lift, and transferred resident 11 from her recliner to the wheelchair. *CNA M stated that each sit-to-stand lift had a safety sling that was to be kept with that lift. The safety sling would be used for transferring any resident who required the use of the lift, and any of the sit-to-stand lifts could be used with any resident. *CNA T stated that there were no disinfectant wipes on the lift, left, then returned with two wipes. She used one wipe to wipe the lift and a second to wipe the safety sling. *She stated those wipes were retrieved from the purple top container at the nurses' station. 8. Observation and interview on 6/26/25 at 8:52 a.m. with CNA L in the 200 hallway revealed: *She was cleaning the [NAME] Plus sit-to-stand lift with a wipe. *She stated that the sit-to-stand lifts were shared between all the residents who required that style of lift and that there was one safety sling for each sit-to-stand lift. Those safety slings were stored on the lift. *The shared lifts and safety slings were to be wiped down between each resident's use with a Sani-wipe [disinfectant]. *She used one wipe to wipe the surfaces of the lift and a second wipe to wipe the cloth safety sling. -She was unsure if there was a specific amount of time that the surface of the shared lift sling would need to remain wet to ensure that it had been disinfected between each resident use. *She left and then returned and stated there was no specific amount of time that the shared safety sling would need to remain wet, and as long as it was dry, it was ready to use with the next resident. *The full-body mechanical lifts were also shared by residents, however, each resident who used the full-body lift had individual lift slings because that sling was left under the resident in their chair for future use. 9. Interview on 6/25/25 at 5:19 p.m. with director of quality and infection control E and director of nursing (DON) B revealed: *Resident 11's urinary catheter drainage bag should not have been stored on the floor or hung on the trash can to prevent contamination. They had not considered where it should have hung, but they expected that there would have been a barrier between the bag and the floor or the trash can. *DON B confirmed that the resident's urinary catheter bag's drainage spout should have been cleaned with an alcohol pad after being in contact with the floor, before it was placed back in the catheter bag's holder. *DON B confirmed the CNAs should have changed their gloves and used hand hygiene after having emptied the catheter and having been in contact with the drainage spout before using the shared sit-to-stand lift and shared safety sling. *DON B confirmed that the lifts and the sit-to-stand safety slings were shared by all residents requiring the use of those lifts. The sit-to-stand safety slings were stored with those lifts in the hallway. *They expected that the purple top Sani-wipes would have been stored with each lift and used to clean and disinfect the lift and the cloth safety sling between each resident's use. *They were unaware that the shared cloth sit-to-stand safety lift slings may not have been adequately cleaned between each resident's use. *DON B confirmed that the sling's fabric surface would not be able to maintain a wet time to ensure that it had been cleaned or disinfected. 10. Review of the Super Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipe product label revealed: *To disinfect and deodorize hard, nonporous surfaces: If present, use a wipe to remove visible soil prior to disinfecting. Unfold a clean wipe and thoroughly wet surface. Allow surface to remain wet for two [2] minutes. Let air dry . -There were no instructions for use to disinfect a cloth surface. 11. Review of the provider's April 2025 Perineal Care policy revealed: * Residents with an IUC [indwelling urinary catheter] . Hang [the] drainage bag . ensure bag is not touching the floor . *Prevent the drain spout from touching the floor . 12. Review of the provider's 11/14/24 Hand Hygiene policy revealed: *Hand Hygiene (HH) continues to be the primary means of preventing the transmission of infection .To provide a clean and healthy environment for residents, staff, and visitors. *HH, either with soap and water or with alcohol based hand rub (ABHR): .2. before a clean procedure or handling an invasive device . 5. After removing gloves. 13. Review of the manufacturer's [NAME] Plus Sling Cleaning Instructions revealed: *In order to obtain a sufficient level of disinfection, machine wash the sling at 158 degrees Fahrenheit (F). *If allowed according to product label, tumble dry at a low temperature, maximum 140 degrees F. 14. Review of the manufacturer's EZ Way Smart Stand Operator's Instructions did not include instructions for disinfecting the safety sling between resident uses. 15. Review of the manufacturer's Tollos Steady Aid safety sling instructions revealed: Reusable slings should be laundered between patients. 16. Review of the provider's April 2025 Disinfection of Non-Critical Resident Care Equipment policy revealed: *Cleaning, disinfecting and storing equipment and supplies is important in preventing the transmission of potential pathogens within the long-term care facility. *For the safety and comfort of residents, all reusable (non-critical) resident care items will be cleaned, disinfected and maintained in a safe manner between resident uses. *Noncritical resident care items .are cleaned between/after each resident use. They require Low level disinfection by cleaning following manufacturer instructions with an EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]-registered disinfectant detergent, or germicide that is approved for healthcare settings. *Disinfection Recommendations- Reusable resident care equipment: All applicable instructions on EPA-registered disinfectant products must be followed .Between each resident use and when soiled .Lifts & [and] slings.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the provider failed to post the required daily nursing staffing information that included the facility name, total number of staff hours. and the ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the provider failed to post the required daily nursing staffing information that included the facility name, total number of staff hours. and the actual hours worked by nursing staff for 33 or 33 random days reviewed in March, April, and June of 2025. 1. Observation on 6/24/25 at 9:39 a.m. of the posted nurse staffing information revealed: *It was posted on a board near the nurses' station. *It did not contain the name of the facility as required. *There were six categories of staff listed on the sheet: RN (registered nurse), LPN (licensed practical nurse), CNA (certified nursing assistant), Medication aide, Restorative aide, and shift totals. *Within each of those categories the number of staff scheduled for the day was listed by shift. *There was one RN listed for each identified shift. *The CNA area under the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift indicated there were six CNAs working within the facility during that time frame. *There were no documented actual or total hours worked on the form for nursing staff as required. 2. Review of the 6/24/25 nursing staff assignment sheet revealed: *There had been a staff member who was ILL for the 6:00 a.m. shift. *The staff member who had called in ill was not replaced by another CNA on the assignment sheet, which indicated there were only five CNAs present for that 6:00 a.m. shift. *Nurses in management roles were not listed on the assignment sheet. 3. Interview on 6/25/25 at 2:14 p.m. with RN H revealed: *The night nurse was responsible for completing the daily staffing sheet and posting it on the board near the nurses' station. *The numbers entered on the daily staffing sheet were gathered from the nursing staff assignment sheet, which listed the staff who were scheduled to work for the upcoming day. *She verified the CNA that was documented on the assignment sheet on 6/24/25 as ILL was not replaced by another staff member. *She verified the 6/24/25 daily staffing sheet was not updated to reflect the staff present during that shift. *She indicated if someone called in or did not show up for their shift, the daily staffing sheet would not be updated to reflect the actual number of staff present in the facility that day. *Nurses in management positions, such as the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse and the director of nursing (DON), were not included in the nursing staff numbers reflected on the daily staffing sheet. *The actual and total number of hours worked were not calculated and documented on the daily staffing sheet. 4. Interview on 6/26/25 at 12:09 p.m. with DON B revealed: *She expected the daily staffing form to be adjusted if there was a staff member call in to accurately reflect the number of staff working in the facility for the shift. *She verified there was no facility identification on the daily staffing form as required. *She agreed the daily staffing form did not reflect the actual staff hours worked, or the total number of staff hours worked as required. Review of the provider's June 2025 Nursing Daily Staffing Information Posting policy revealed: *The facility posts the following information on a daily basis: -1. Facility name -2. The current date -3. The total number and actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: registered nurses, licensed practical nurses or licensed vocational nurses, and certified nurse aides. -4. Resident census. *The facility must post the nurse staffing data mentioned above on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift.
Jan 2024 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

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 South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) event report review, medical record review, physical therapy evaluation revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) event report review, medical record review, physical therapy evaluation review, care plan review, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one certified nursing assistant (CNA) (I) had followed one of one sampled resident's (7) care plan for using two staff persons to transfer resident 7 using a [NAME] Plus stand lift, resulting in a fall and a fractured hip. Findings include: 1. Review of the SD DOH event report received on 12/28/23 from the provider revealed at 12/19/23 at 7:30 p.m.: *Resident 7 was being transferred with the use of a [NAME] Plus stand lift from a wheelchair to his bed by CNA I when He slipped out of the lift. -CNA I had been supporting his upper body as he fell to the floor. *The lift had been removed from use, inspected by the physical therapist (PT), and found no fault in the lift. -The lift sling was new and in good repair. *Registered nurse (RN) L assessed resident 7 after the fall and transferred him to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured hip requiring a total hip replacement. *The provider report indicated CNA I had followed the policy for using the [NAME] Plus stand lift because CNA I was eighteen years old or older so she could run a lift. Continued review of resident 7's 12/19/23 SD DOH event report revealed: *Director of Nursing (DON) B interviewed CNA I on 12/20/23 regarding resident 7's fall on 12/19/23 before her next scheduled shift revealed: *CNA I had confirmed: -She was using the [NAME] Plus stand lift independently on resident 7 at the time of his fall. -Resident 7 was in the [NAME] Plus stand lift, lifting him up to a standing position. -CNA I was standing behind him while cleaning his buttocks. -CNA I attempted to catch his fall by holding the top part of his body while protecting his head. *Review of RN L documentation confirmed his position when she entered his room. *A root cause analysis of the event completed by DON B, RN quality director P, Assistant administrator for senior living O noted that CNA I had not worked at the facility for several months because she had begun college in the fall of 2023 -She had not looked through the care plans before she stepped onto the unit to provide care for the residents she was assigned to on 12/19/23. 2. Review of resident 7's medical record revealed: *One 10/16/23 at 2:00 a.m. he was discovered on the floor beside his bed. -He had told a staff member he was attempting to retrieve his socks and shoes. *On 10/16/23 at 2:18 p.m. he was evaluated by a physician to check his injuries. *One 10/23/23 at 2:00 p.m. a nursing progress note indicated Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator/RN C and licensed social worker M had discussed his pain and that he had increased pain since that fall, requiring the use of a full-body mechanical lift. *He had a history of multiple sclerosis (MS), foot drop, and multiple falls, and was identified as a fall risk. *A 10/27/23 PT evaluation indicated PT N had encouraged charge nurses and CNAs to continue using the full-body mechanical lift. *A 10/30/23 PT evaluation indicated PT N recommended resident 7 to progress to the [NAME] Plus stand lift to help progress his lower extremity strength and tolerance. PT N educated the RN and CNA staff of the recommended changes. 3. Review of resident 7's care plan with a start date of 11/7/23, revealed: *For toileting he was to have had total assistance of two staff persons to transfer him with a full-body lift on and off the commode (toilet). *For transfers he was to have had two staff persons for using the [NAME] Plus stand lift. 4. Interview on 1/18/24 at 10:30 a.m. with DON B and MDS coordinator/RN C regarding resident 7's 12/19/23 fall revealed: *After a period of not working, CNA I had not reviewed the resident care plans before providing care for them on 12/19/23. *Resident 7 had been declining both physically and cognitively for the last several months. -He was care planned for two staff persons with him for all mechanical lift transfers. *When asked about a care plan specific for CNA's to use so they could carry it with them to refer to, MDS coordinator C stated she had provided a daily assignment sheet specific for each CNA to carry while working. -Resident 7's 12/19/23 daily assignment sheet provided to this surveyor had stated that he was supposed to use two staff members while using a stand lift. *DON B stated staff education was provided by her after the incident, including CNA I and all of the nursing staff. -She stated she had not kept the information provided to those staff members or a record of the attendance of the staff. *Observation at the same time, of the [NAME] Plus stand lift revealed: -MDS coordinator C was placed in the lift so that this surveyor could visualize how it worked. -A sling was placed on the person's abdomen and closed using the Velcro belt on the sling. -DON B stated the assessment after the 12/19/23 fall had determined: --The sling had been attached to the lift correctly and was tight enough to prevent him from falling through the sling. --The sling was still attached to the lift even after resident 7 fell. --CNA I stated in the SD DOH event report his legs just crumbled beneath him as he fell straight down. 5. Review of the provider's January 2024 Stand Lift Therapy Equipment Policy and Procedure revealed: *The policy for the lift was to be recommended for residents deemed appropriate by licensed PT's, in collaboration with PT assistants and nursing services. *All facility staff involved in resident care would have been assigned responsibility for ensuring compliance with the policy. *If variance from a care plan was necessary, the DON or PT staff would have been consulted. *Staff members would be provided with training initially and as needed to correct improper use or understanding of safe resident handling. *Use of the stand lift required manual operation of one staff member. *Staff is required to maintain direct line of sight supervision with all residents utilizing a stand lift. *Residents would have been required to maintain upright posture, and maintain satisfactory level of safety. Review of the undated [NAME] Plus Instructions For Use revealed the [NAME] Plus stand lift was to always be handled by a trained caregiver, continuously attending to the resident. Review of the provider's November 2021 Falls and Accidents policy revealed: *The determination of supervision was based on the resident's assessed needs and identified hazards in the residents environment. *All staff would have been educated about and have access to care plans which were initialized for each resident and address potential hazards. *Effective and modification of interventions was monitored on a regular basis through QAPI (Quality assurance and performance improvement) program. *The residents care plan would specifically address any risk factors that provided a benefit, such as a mobility device.
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 policy review, the provider failed to ensure staff interactions and services were provided in a manner that maintained a sense of dignity and respect for residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure staff interactions and services were provided in a manner that maintained a sense of dignity and respect for residents' that required assistance during one of two observed resident meal services. Findings include: 1. On 1/16/24 at 5:15 p.m. certified nursing assistant/certified medication aide (CNA/CMA) G was asked which dining tables were for the residents who required assistance with eating. She pointed to the last two tables at the north end of the dining room. She stated those were the feeder tables. There were other residents around when she stated that. Observation on 1/16/24 in the main dining room of the residents evening meal revealed at: *5:20 p.m. CNA E discussed with surveyors in the dining room that there were two feeder tables and one table for observation. *5:28 p.m. CNA F asked CNA E Do you want to feed? in the dining room in front of the residents while serving resident meals. *5:36 p.m. CNA E used resident 3's fork to bring food that had spilled out of her mouth onto her chin back into her mouth. *5:48 p.m. CNA F who was standing next to one of the assisted dining tables called across the dining room in a loud voice to registered nurse (RN) D, who was standing at the entrance to the dining room, [First name of RN D] do you want to assist with feeders at this table? *5:52 p.m. RN D used a spoon to scoop up food that had spilled onto resident 27's clothing protector and put it on her plate. She mixed the food that was scooped up from the clothing protector in with the other food and then gave resident 27 a bite of food. Interview on 1/18/24 at 3:00 p.m. with administrator A and director of nursing B revealed the above observations had not provided those residents with dignity when they were assisted with eating. The CNA's were given education on the use of the word feeder when they referred to residents who required assistance with dining. Review of the provider's policy on Dignity, last revised December 2021, revealed: *Staff would interact and carry out activities with residents that assisted in maintaining and enhancing each resident's self-esteem and self-worth. *Staff should address residents with the name or pronoun of the resident's choice, avoiding the use of labels for residents such as feeders.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (27) was dressed in a Onesie (one-piece close-fitting garment with an openi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (27) was dressed in a Onesie (one-piece close-fitting garment with an opening in the back) restraint to prevent her from removing her clothing had the following: *Approval of the use of the Onesie restraint from resident 27's guardian. *An assessment to ensure the Onesie restraint was not used for staff convenience. *A physician's order for the use of the restraint. *Used the least restrictive restraint for the least amount of time. *Documented the use of the restraint in the care plan. *A routine re-evaluation to ensure the Onesie was appropriate and necessary. Findings include: 1. Observations of resident 27 revealed on: *On 1/16/24 at 5:30 p.m. she was wearing a flowered flannel Onesie with a zipper in the back. *On 1/17/24 at 10:30 a.m. she was wearing a denim Onesie with a zipper in the back. She continued to have that Onesie on through 4:30 p.m. *On 1/18/24 at 12:30 p.m. she was wearing a Onesie with a zipper in the back. Interview on 1/17/24 at 10:30 a.m. with resident 27's husband, who resided in the facility, revealed he was aware of the Onesie she wore. He stated she would remove her personal clothing if she wore regular clothing. Interview on 1/18/24 at 9:30 a.m. with certified nursing assistant (CNA) L regarding resident 27 revealed: *She wore the Onesie at all times otherwise she would remove her personal clothing, *As her dementia had progressed she started to remove her personal clothing. *She had been unable to be redirected when she took her clothing off. Interview on 1/18/24 at 2:30 p.m. with director of nursing B and Minimum Data Set coordinator C revealed: *They had not thought of the Onesie as a restraint. *Agreed there had been no assessments on the use of the Onesie. *They agreed it could have been a restraint as she had no access to her own body. Review of resident 27's undated care plan revealed: *Focus: [Resident] has a hx [history] of disrobing and aggressive behaviors towards others at times. *Goal: [Resident] will maintain current level of function through the next review date. The date was not listed. *Interventions: INDIVIDUALIZED STAFF APPROACHES: -utilize adaptive clothing when needed to prevent public disrobing. Review of resident 27's electronic and paper medical records revealed no assessments were completed to determine if the Onesie was needed as a restraint. Review of the provider's last revised September 1993 Physical Restraints policy revealed: *Physical restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. *The provider will evaluate each resident for safety and provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent avoidable accidents. *There was no guidance on what process was to have been completed to rule out a device as a restraint.
Feb 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Observation on 2/13/23 at 4:15 p.m. of resident 28 revealed she was sitting in a reclining chair with a blood-stained inconti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Observation on 2/13/23 at 4:15 p.m. of resident 28 revealed she was sitting in a reclining chair with a blood-stained incontinence pad under her. Observation on 2/14/23 at 10:10 a.m. of resident 28 revealed she was still sitting in a reclining chair. Observation and interview on 2/15/23 at 12:15 p.m. with of resident 28 revealed she: *Was in her bed lying on her left side. *Called a small black cushion in the seat of the reclining chair her special cushion. *Had a sore on her bottom. *Did not know exactly when she got it, but said that she did not have it before moving in. Review of resident 28's medical record revealed: *She was admitted on [DATE]. *The MDS assessment dated [DATE] at admission and the 1/10/23 significant change MDS coded her at risk for developing a pressure ulcer. She had a pressure reducing device for her bed and the chair. *The presence of one unstageable pressure ulcer and moisture associated skin damage were coded on the 1/10/23 MDS. *Her BIMS score on both the 3/24/22 and 1/10/23 MDS assessments were coded as 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. *The skin/wound section revealed: -No weekly skin assessments were documented after the initial screening on admission. -Photo documentation of four open areas had developed (coccyx, sacrum, left hip, and left ear). *The care plan was revised after the pressure ulcers had been identified with preventative measures implemented (gel and ROHO cushion). *She had become compliant with her treatments. Interview on 2/15/23 at 10:25 a.m. with RN B regarding resident 28 revealed: *She did not have pressure ulcers prior to her admission to the facility. *She had been noncompliant when first admitted to the facility, but she had been compliant with her treatment in the past few months. *She was supplied pressure relieving equipment (gel and ROHO cushion) but continued to get pressure ulcers. RN B was not sure why she kept getting ulcers. *CNAs look at residents' skin during bathing days and would let the nurse know of any concerns that were found. Interview on 2/15/23 at 12:21 p.m. with director of nursing A about resident 28's pressure ulcer revealed: *Resident 28 had obtained the pressure ulcers after her admission to the facility. *No skin assessments had been completed in the 11 months after resident 28 had been admitted . *CNAs were to check residents' skin during bathing and to notify the nurse of any identified issues. Interview on 2/15/23 at 6:15 p.m. with CNA C revealed only the CNAs would check the residents for skin issues during bathing and would inform the nurse if there were any identified skin issues. Review of the provider's 2/22 Skin Policy and Procedure revealed: *Full head-to-toe skin assessment was to be completed on admission and with significant changes to assess skin changes or breakdown. *The Braden Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment tool was completed upon admission and with all MDS assessments. *Based on skin assessments, interventions were to be put into place. *Nurse Assistants were responsible to observe residents during daily care and especially during bathing and report concerns promptly to the charge nurse. *A nurse identifying a skin issue was to promptly document a thorough assessment in the medical record, determine treatment, and communicate the issue to staff. *The charge nurse was responsible to communicate skin concerns to physician and request treatment orders. *All skin injuries would receive daily monitoring by the charge nurses. *Documentation, at a minimum, of a weekly skin assessment would include skin injury location, type of injury, size, and integrity. Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure: *Ongoing and timely skin assessments were conducted and documented by licensed nurses prior to the development of pressure ulcers for three of three sampled residents (9, 28, and 33) who had been identified as at risk for pressure ulcers. *Complete and accurate ongoing documentation of identified pressure ulcers for three of three sampled residents (9, 28, and 33) who developed pressure ulcers. Documentation to reflect: -Location and staging. -Size, depth, and presence, location and extent of any undermining g or tunneling. -Exudate, if present. -Pain, if present. -Wound bed, color and type of tissue/character, including evidence of healing. -Description of wound edges and surrounding tissues as appropriate. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview on 2/14/23 at 11:24 a.m. with resident 9 in his room revealed he: *Was sitting in a wheelchair on a ROHO pressure relieving cushion. There was a pressure relieving cushion in his recliner. *Had a prosthetic on his right leg and said the amputation above his knee happened in the past year due to his diabetes. *Received a whirlpool bath with staff assistance once a week. *Walked with staff three times a day in the hallway. *Had reported pain to his back side several months ago, and then the nurse looked and found a sore on his bottom. *Now, they were looking at it every day, they had placed a patch over it, and the pain was finally getting better. Review of resident 9's medical record revealed: *He was admitted on [DATE]. *His diagnoses included Type 2 diabetes with neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, muscle weakness, right above the knee amputation, left toe amputation, malignant neoplasm of the bone and prostrate, and chronic kidney disease stage 3. *The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments dated 1/3/22 at admission and the significant change assessments dated 2/10/22, 6/8/22, 9/3/22, and 12/27/22 all coded him at risk for developing a pressure ulcer and he had a pressure reducing device for his bed and his chair. None of them coded the presence of a pressure ulcer until the 12/27/22 MDS that coded a Stage 2 pressure ulcer (top two layers of skin broken open, usually tender and painful, may also be an intact or broken open filled blister). *His Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15 on all the above MDS assessments, and that indicated he was cognitively intact. *All eight Braden Scale assessment scores (used to determine the risk of developing a pressure ulcer) completed in 2022 indicated he was at risk for developing a pressure ulcer. *Skin/Wound Note documentation included: -On 12/28/21 00:12 a.m., No skin issues at this time noted other than recent amputation of right great toe with wound vac [vacuum] attached. dressing CDI [clean, dry, intact] with scheduled changes. -On 4/19/22 1:07 p.m., Resident has what appears to be a red welted area on his right buttock. Will continue to monitor and pass on to other shifts. -On 5/1/22 2:38 p.m., Resident has areas on inner coccyx that are deep red and look like they are about ready to open. Zinc spray applied and ROHO cushion placed in chair. Encourage resident to sleep with a pillow under one side and turn frequently when in bed to prevent further breakdown. -On 5/2/22 1:07 p.m., This RN [registered nurse] looked at resident bottom. Noted open area to left buttock with redness around the area. Area hard touch. No blanching. Resident does have scar tissue noted above open area. Area noted to have no s/sx [signs/symptoms] of infection and no odor. Noted edges to be wet. Resident did have pressure reducing air mattress and resident wanted to [the] air mattress taken off bed. Again this RN asked resident if he would think about air mattress told this RN to 'Keep thinking. I am not having that on my bed.' Resident does have pressure relieving cushion in recliner and wheelchair. Resident was cleaned up and area dried. Cream applied to area. This RN instructed staff and resident that he needs to relieve pressure off of bottom every two hours. Staff verbalized understanding. Resident also verbalized understanding. Will continue to monitor. -On 8/17/22 5:44 p.m., Resident has an area on buttocks that is very thin and has previously been open. This is currently being covered with a hydrocellular [silicone] foam dressing to protect the thin skin from shearing when resident slides forward in his w/c [wheelchair], recliner, or bed. -On 9/3/22 9:36 a.m., Resident has open areas on sacrum that are bleeding at this time. Area cleansed thoroughly and dressing applied. Will continue to monitor and update other staff. -On 9/16/22 11:07 a.m., Dressing removed from bottom area does have a foul smell however, suspect it could be from old drainage. dressing was not reapplied. would like to be able to monitor without dressing for a couple of days. nursing to utilize barrier cream at this time. -On 11/6/22 2:43 p.m., Resident's coccygeal area shows the fragile epithelialization to be opening up in two spots. Area was gently cleansed and Medihoney and a hydrocolloid dressing [two layers of beginning biodegradable, breathable, and adhesive material] was placed to cover. Will monitor closely. *His current medical orders included the following: -Juven nutritional supplement twice daily for wound healing. -Medihoney applied topically to the wound bed on his coccyx and then covered with a wound dressing every three days or sooner if the dressing became contaminated. -Nursing to check his coccyx wound/dressing daily and change it [the dressing] as needed until it [the wound] healed. Review of resident 9's care plan regarding skin integrity initiated on 1/14/22 and revised through 2/13/23 revealed: *Impairment of skin integrity at his coccyx related to peripheral vascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and stage 3 chronic kidney disease. *Interventions to prevent pressure ulcers and then to promote wound healing included: -A pressure reducing air mattress on his bed, that he refused, so after he was educated about the risks, the air mattress was replaced with a different pressure reducing mattress. -A pressure relieving cushion in his recliner and wheelchair. -Wound dressings to be completed as ordered by his physician. Observation and interview on 2/15/23 from 12:25 p.m. to 1:14 p.m. with RN B while performing wound care for resident 9 revealed: *Resident 9's stage 2 coccyx pressure ulcer was discovered when he complained about pain in his coccyx area. *They had placed a pressure reduction mattress on his bed, but he did not like it. He was educated on the risk versus benefits but still wanted it removed, so they honored his choice. *He had a gel cushion in his recliner and wheelchair until the pressure ulcer was discovered and then a ROHO cushion was placed in his recliner and wheelchair. *His stage 2 pressure ulcer was healing. 2. Observation and interview on 12/14/23 at 10:47 a.m. with resident 33 revealed he: *Was sitting in a wheelchair on a pressure relieving cushion. *Was able to move himself in his wheelchair using his arms and feet to his wife's room in a different location of the facility to visit her, and he did that several times a day. *Required assistance from staff for dressing and bathing. *Had compression stockings and shoes on his feet. *Denied any skin breakdown or skin concerns. Review of resident 33's medical record revealed: *He was admitted on [DATE]. *His diagnoses included: History of venous thrombosis and embolism, pulmonary embolism without acute cor pulmonale, cerebral infarction, and aphasia. *The MDS assessment dated [DATE] at admission and the 12/9/22 significant change MDS coded him as at risk for developing a pressure ulcer, and there was a pressure reducing device for his bed and chair. *His BIMS score on the 9/27/22 MDS was 15 and then 13 on the 12/9/22 MDS, both indicating he was cognitively intact. *All five Braden Scale assessment scores completed in 2022 indicated he was at risk for developing a pressure ulcer. *Skin/Wound Note documentation included: -On 11/7/22 6:12 a.m., Resident had scab/corn on left great toe in two spots. -On 2/10/23 9:00 a.m., This RN was informed of sore on resident left great toe. This RN assessed left great toe noted area to tip of left great toe with slight amount of drainage blood tint colored. Resident denies any pain to left foot or toe. After talking with staff noted that resident does wear TED [thromboembolism-deterrent] hose and the TED hose are tight to his toes. Right now resident just has gripper socks on and the socks are pulled away from his toes. Dressing was applied to left great toe. Order sent over to PCP [primary care physician] for Aquacel dressing for the great left toe. Resident son [name] notified of area on great left toe. Dietician notified of area on left great toe. Will continue to monitor. -On 2/11/23 4:12 p.m., CNA [certified nursing assistant] assessed resident's toe. He denied pain but stated he did feel some pain with cleansing of the wound. He states that he feels pressure and touching on his foot in general and his pedal pulses are palpable. His foot is normal temp [temperature] for his body. The wound bed is dark red granulation tissue with pale, hard tissue immediately surrounding, almost like an old blister. the periwound [sic] is dark red. Area cleansed and a hydrocolloid dressing applied. -On 2/13/23 2:00 p.m., This wound was rechecked as it did say right instead of left great toe. [physician] did see wound on Friday 2/10 and today 2/13. [resident 33] was started on antibiotics and he also will not wear TED hose as there is pressure from the TED hose. Also will talk with family about getting new shoes that are softer. Dressing continues to be foam to help keep moisture away from the wound. *His current medical orders included: -Juven nutritional supplement twice daily for wound healing. -A podiatry referral. -Bactrim antibiotic two times daily for left great toe infection for five days. -Routine wound care for left great toe. -An X-ray of left great toe. *The X-ray results were negative for any bone infection. Review of resident 33's care plan regarding skin integrity initiated on 10/3/22 and revised through 2/11/23 revealed: *He had impairment to skin integrity related to a left great toe pressure ulcer. *Interventions to prevent pressure ulcers and then to promote wound healing included: -A pressure reducing mattress on his bed. -A pressure relieving cushion in his recliner and wheelchair. -Physician orders for antibiotics, wound dressings, a podiatry referral, and an X-ray of his left great toe. Observation and interview on 2/15/23 from 12:25 p.m. to 1:14 p.m. with RN B while performing wound care for resident 33 revealed: *The stage 2 left great toe pressure ulcer was discovered when a CNA was putting on his TED compression stockings, and she alerted the nurse. *He wore TED compression stockings for his 3 plus pitting edema [fluid retention], and they attributed his ulcer to the TED compression stocking rubbing on his toe. *The CNAs had been educated to pull the TED compression stocking away from the toe when they put them on. *They had ordered toeless TED compression stockings for him. *He had an X-ray of the toe yesterday and there was no bone infection. *He moved himself in his wheelchair with his arms and feet. *He denied pain and said he did not feel the pressure ulcer on his toe, and it does not hurt me. *She further explained the process for identifying, reporting, and preventing the development of pressure ulcers included: -The charge nurse completed a comprehensive skin assessment for residents at admission. -Braden Scale assessments were completed by nursing at admission and quarterly with the MDS assessments and with significant changes. -Interventions such as cushions in chairs and wheelchairs, pressure reducing mattresses, and repositioning were put in place for residents at risk for skin breakdown. -Skin concerns or changes were identified and reported to nursing staff by CNA observations while assisting with personal care and bathing, or by residents reporting their concerns. -Once the nurse received a report of skin concerns or changes, the nurse would complete a skin assessment, decide on the plan of care and treatment, notify the physician for treatment orders, implement daily skin/wound checks, and complete weekly wound assessments with measurements. Interview on 2/15/23 at 3:49 p.m. with director of nursing (DON) A regarding nurses completing skin assessments revealed: *Braden Scale assessments were completed for residents by the nurse on admission, quarterly with the MDS and with any significant changes. *If the Braden score indicated a resident was at risk for pressure ulcers, interventions were put into place, such as pressure relieving devices, and repositioning programs. *A resident received a thorough skin assessment completed by the night charge nurse at admission. *CNAs observed resident's skin during personal cares and bathing and were to report to the charge nurse any skin concerns such as redness or bruising. *Outside of the CNA certification course that addressed dry skin, applying lotion etc . CNAs had no additional training for their delegated resident skin observations. *They held a daily huddle where staff were asked about any resident skin issues or observed skin changes. *When the charge nurse was notified of resident skin issues, she completed a skin assessment, notified the provider, and implemented a daily nurse skin/wound check. Interview on 2/15/23 at 6:12 p.m. with CNA D regarding skin observations revealed she: *Had worked at the facility for 50 years. *Had not received any additional training on observing residents' skin and/or wounds outside of her CNA certification course. *Completed skin observations when assisting residents with personal cares, activities of daily living and bathing. *Reported any observed resident skin concerns such as bruises, redness on the coccyx, under the breasts, armpits, skin folds or the feet to the charge nurse. *Had shared with the charge nurse any resident concerns voiced to her, such as redness or irritation in folds of skin or pain in pressure spots like bottoms or heels. *Attended the daily staff huddle and would bring up resident skin concerns at that time. *Had worked with residents who had skin concerns and had pressure ulcer prevention interventions in place such as, a gel or ROHO cushion, an alternating air mattress, a schedule to reposition every 2 hours, and/or a schedule to walk or go to the toilet depending on the resident's mobility.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (81/100). Above average facility, better than most options in South Dakota.
  • • 27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below South Dakota's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 11 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $20,726 in fines. Higher than 94% of South Dakota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Oakview Terrace's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns OAKVIEW TERRACE 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 Oakview Terrace Staffed?

CMS rates OAKVIEW TERRACE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 27%, compared to the South Dakota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Oakview Terrace?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at OAKVIEW TERRACE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 9 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Oakview Terrace?

OAKVIEW TERRACE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 45 certified beds and approximately 41 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FREEMAN, South Dakota.

How Does Oakview Terrace Compare to Other South Dakota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Dakota, OAKVIEW TERRACE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (27%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Oakview Terrace?

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 Oakview Terrace Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, OAKVIEW TERRACE 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 Oakview Terrace Stick Around?

Staff at OAKVIEW TERRACE tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 27%, the facility is 19 percentage points below the South Dakota average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Oakview Terrace Ever Fined?

OAKVIEW TERRACE has been fined $20,726 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the South Dakota average of $33,286. 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 Oakview Terrace on Any Federal Watch List?

OAKVIEW TERRACE 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.