St William's Care Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
St. William's Care Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about care quality. It ranks #46 out of 95 facilities in South Dakota, which places it in the top half, but still raises alarms due to its low trust score. The facility is worsening, with the number of reported issues doubling from 5 in 2023 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 45%, which is better than the state average, but it has concerning levels of RN coverage, being lower than 92% of South Dakota facilities. Families should be aware of serious incidents, including a staff member verbally abusing a resident and another case involving allegations of sexual abuse, which highlight significant risks that need addressing alongside the facility's general strengths.
- Trust Score
- F
- In South Dakota
- #46/95
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 45% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $55,331 in fines. Higher than 76% of South Dakota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Dakota. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near South Dakota average (2.7)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near South Dakota avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
5 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility reported incident (FRI] report, interview, record review and policy review the provider failed to prevent staff to resident sexual abuse fr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to provide a bed-hold notice to the resident or their representative when transferred to the hospital for one of one sampled r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview the provider failed to ensure appropriate and timely Medicare notices had been provided for two of three sampled residents (47 and 250) who discharged from skilled...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to follow physician orders for two of six residents (36 and 32) during medication administration that resulted in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review the provider failed to ensure room trays were served at a satisfactory temper...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
5 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · 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), interview, observation, record review, and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility reported incident (FRI), interview, record review, and policy revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to report allegations of abuse to the required entities in the required timeframe for two of two incidents of alleged abuse in...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to investigate two of two reported allegations of abuse experienced by two of three sampled residents (3 and 4). Findings incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, observation, and policy review, the provider failed to follow their policy to ensure a controlled medication (one easily diverted by staff) was securely stored for one of one (1) r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
5 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to ensure that two of two sampled residents (27 and 32) had an investigation completed following falls with injuri...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to ensure that two of two sampled residents (27 and 32) who had falls with injuries were reported to the South Dak...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the provider failed to ensure the proper Medicare notices were completed and provided for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the provider failed to ensure narcotic medication had been reconciled correctly for one of one sampled resident (12). Findings include...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 one of five sampled residents (41) with a PRN...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the provider failed to ensure the proper Medicare notices were completed appropriately and provided for one of three sampled residents (34) who had remained in th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure notification of the bed hold policy had been...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the provider failed to assess fall prevention devices for one of one sampled...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to develop and revise person-centered care plans for one of fourteen sampled residents (21) reviewed for care pla...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to document a rationale for the PRN [as needed] order of a psychotropic medication for longer than 14 days for one of five resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the provider failed to identify the need for preventive maintenance of the bed rail for one of sixteen sampled residents (96) with bed rails. Findin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure two injuries of unknown source had been reported to the South Dakota Department of Health in a timely m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
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 thoroughly investigate two injuries of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 harm violation(s), $55,331 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 23 deficiencies on record, including 4 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $55,331 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in South Dakota. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is St William'S Care Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns St William's Care Center an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within South Dakota, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is St William'S Care Center Staffed?
CMS rates St William's Care Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the South Dakota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at St William'S Care Center?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at St William's Care Center during 2022 to 2024. These included: 4 that caused actual resident harm and 19 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates St William'S Care Center?
St William's Care Center 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 60 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MILBANK, South Dakota.
How Does St William'S Care Center Compare to Other South Dakota Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Dakota, St William's Care Center's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting St William'S Care Center?
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 St William'S Care Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, St William's Care Center 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 3-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 St William'S Care Center Stick Around?
St William's Care Center has a staff turnover rate of 45%, which is about average for South Dakota nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was St William'S Care Center Ever Fined?
St William's Care Center has been fined $55,331 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the South Dakota average of $33,632. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is St William'S Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?
St William's Care Center 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.