DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE

1321 W DOW RUMMEL ST, SIOUX FALLS, SD 57104 (605) 336-1490
Non profit - Corporation 50 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
73/100
#19 of 95 in SD
Last Inspection: August 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Dow Rummel Village in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes, but not the best available. It ranks #19 out of 95 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and is the best option in Minnehaha County, ranking #1 out of 9. However, the facility's trend is worsening, as the number of issues reported increased from 1 in 2023 to 3 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, with a 0% turnover rate, significantly better than the state average of 49%, suggesting that staff members are experienced and familiar with residents’ needs. Nonetheless, the facility faced $8,018 in fines, which is average and may indicate some compliance issues. Specific incidents of concern include a serious failure to identify a resident with a shellfish allergy before serving them shrimp Alfredo, leading to an allergic reaction that required treatment. Additionally, the facility did not submit required staffing data on time for one of the quarters in 2024, and comprehensive care plans were lacking for residents with documented food allergies. While the home has strengths in staffing stability and overall ratings, these serious issues highlight areas for improvement.

Trust Score
B
73/100
In South Dakota
#19/95
Top 20%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$8,018 in fines. Higher than 80% of South Dakota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 57 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for South Dakota. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2024: 3 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

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

The Bad

Federal Fines: $8,018

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 5 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2024 2 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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI), observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure resident (1) who had an al...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on South Dakota Department of Health (SD DOH) facility-reported incident (FRI), observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure resident (1) who had an allergic reaction that required the administration of an antihistamine due to a shellfish allergy was identified by the dietary staff before being served shrimp Alfredo. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's 8/16/2024 SD DOH FRI revealed: *On 8/16/24, the provider served shrimp [NAME] for lunch. The nurse had looked up residents who had shellfish allergies and reminded the certified nursing assistants (CNA) to be careful of cross-contamination. The nurse then questioned resident 1's meal and confirmed that resident 1 was served the pureed shrimp Alfredo. Resident 1 was then taken to the nurses' station for assessment where she started to develop a rash around the mouth and redness in her mouth and throat. The nurse obtained orders to administer Benadryl. The Benadryl was administered to resident 1 once it had been received. 2. Observation on 8/21/24 at 11:30 a.m. of the lunch service with [NAME] E and [NAME] F revealed: * [NAME] E and [NAME] F referred to the resident's tray ticket for the resident's preferences for each meal. *The food tray ticket included the resident's diet, diet texture, adaptive equipment, allergies, and menu preference. *Cook F referenced the tray tickets and placed food items on the resident's plate. 3. Interview on 8/21/24 at 11:45 a.m. with [NAME] E and [NAME] F revealed: *On 8/16/24 [NAME] F served shrimp [NAME] to resident 1. *Cook F admitted that she had missed the documented shellfish allergy on resident 1's tray ticket on 8/16/24. *Cook F felt that a resident's food allergies should be highlighted on the tray ticket, and stated it would make dietary staff more aware of the resident's food allergies. *Cook F stated that nursing staff should have made dietary staff aware when they had known that shellfish was on the menu, and there were residents with a documented shellfish allergy. *Cook E stated nursing did not communicate with them until the food was already served to resident 1. *When asked about substitutes for residents with food allergies, [NAME] E stated that residents on puree diets did not have a choice because the menu does not offer pureed food and most residents with puree diets cannot communicate their preferences. *Cook E stated that the dietary staff would go to each resident's room and would ask them if the resident wanted the main meal being served or if they would want a substitute food item. However, they would not do this for residents on puree diets because there was not a puree option on the menu. She felt this may have been why they would have not looked at resident 1's tray ticket as closely on 8/16/24. *When asked what she would do if she had realized that resident 1 had a shellfish allergy, [NAME] F stated she would have made something else for her to eat. 4. Interview on 8/21/24 at 12:30 p.m. with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) C and Director of Culinary Services (DCS) D revealed: *Tray tickets were printed three times a week. There is a specific section where allergies are listed. *It is the responsibility of staff to reference the tray tickets regarding resident's food allergies. *The shrimp [NAME] was permanently taken off the menu and replaced with chicken Alfredo. *Dietary staff should be offering residents on a puree diet an alternative food option when needed. *The menu substitution lists referred to the 5/27/2020 Offering Food Replacements at Meal Times Policy was not currently available to the dietary staff in the kitchen. 5. Review of Resident 1's electronic medical record revealed: *Resident had a documented shellfish allergy. 6. Review of resident 1's 8/16/24 nursing progress note revealed: *Nursing was advised that dietary was serving shellfish (shrimp Alfredo) for lunch. Nursing reviewed which residents with shellfish allergies. Nursing reminded staff the certified nurse aides (CNA) to be careful of cross contamination and residents who have allergies. The resident was recently switched to a puree diet. The nurse observed the table where resident one was being assisted by staff and questioned the meal resident one was provided and was currently eating. It is reported that the dietary cook had given the resident the pureed shrimp Alfredo. Resident was immediately brought to the nurses' station for examination and monitoring. It was noted that the nurse was able to see resident 1 started to develop a rash on the corners of her mouth. It was also noted that resident 1's mouth and throat were red. Resident 1 was able to speak one-word answers during the examination. Orders for Benadryl and an epinephrine injection were obtained. The Benadryl was given when it arrived. It was noted that the Benadryl was effective, and the epinephrine injection was not needed. 7. Review of the provider's 2/2024 job description for a Licensed dietary cook revealed: *Job duties included: -Reviewing menus before food preparation and following recipes. -Inspecting special diet trays for accuracy. -Coordinating dietary services with other departments. -Assuming authority, responsibility, and accountability of the cook. -Processing and following diet changes and new diets received from nursing services. -Preparing food for therapeutic diets in line with planned menus and standardized recipes. 8. Review of the provider's 5/27/2020 Offering Food Replacements at Mealtimes Policy revealed: *If an individual is not eating (or foods) served, the Nursing Associates in responsible for asking why and for verbally offering a suitable food replacement. (Please see the Menu Substitution Lists in the Menus/Therapeutic Diets Section.) The individual is encouraged to give input for his/her choice of substitution. A minimum of three substitutions should be offered. *For those on special diets, be sure the food replacement offered are appropriate for the therapeutic and mechanically altered diet order.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to develop comprehensive care plans to include interventions for documented food allergies and/or intolerance's for four of fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to develop comprehensive care plans to include interventions for documented food allergies and/or intolerance's for four of four sampled residents (1, 2, 3, 4,) which included one who had been served shrimp [NAME] and developed an allergic reaction. Findings include: 1. Interview on 8/21/24 at 10:05 a.m. with certified nursing assistant (CNA) I revealed: *She had worked for the provider for two years. *She would have referred to the pocket care plan to know how to care for her residents. *She would have assisted residents in the dining room at mealtimes. *The pocket care plan did not list resident 1's shellfish allergy. *She did not know where to find out if a resident had a food allergy or food intolerance. *She would have asked the nurse if she had questions or concerns. 2. Interview on 8/21/24 at 10:10 a.m. with CNA J revealed: *She had worked for the provider for 3 weeks. *She would have referred to the pocket care plan for details of the resident's needs. *She was not aware of where to find a list of resident's food allergies or intolerance. 3. Interview on 8/21/24 at 12:12 p.m. with registered nurse (RN) G and licensed practical nurse (LPN) H revealed: *When asked where nursing staff would find a list of a resident's food allergies, LPN H stated information would be included in their care plan. *LPN H and RN G both agreed that a resident's food allergy should have been on the resident's care plan. *When asked how CNAs would know if a resident had a food allergy, they agreed the CNAs would be expected to ask nursing or refer to the resident's EMR or meal tray ticket. 4. Interview on 8/21/24 at 12:30 p.m. with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) C and Director of Culinary Services (DCS) D revealed: *Resident food preferences or allergies were not included in the resident care plans because those changed of frequently. In the past, some residents had their dislikes listed in the care plan, and requested that food item, and that raised concerns about not following their care plan. *DCS D agreed that it would be important to have residents' food allergies listed in the residents care plan. *CDM C stated that food preferences and food intolerance's were discussed during the residents admission assessment and reviewed quarterly during their care conferences. Food allergies were communicated from the nursing staff at those meetings. *Resident food preferences, intolerance's, and allergies were not included in the residents care plan. They were located on the residents meal tray ticket and available in the kitchen to all staff. 5. Interview on 8/21/24 at 1:04 p.m. with resident 4 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 which indicated her cognition was intact revealed: *Resident had an intolerance to onions which gave her a headache. *When asked if she is served onions, she said sometimes and stated, It is sometimes hard to avoid eating onions here because they put onions in everything. 6. Interview on 8/21/24 at 1:19 p.m. with director of nursing (DON) B regarding resident food allergies and intolerance's revealed: *Direct care staff would use the pocket care plans for direction when providing assistance to residents. *He agreed resident food allergies should be included in care plans and on the pocket care plans used by the CNAs. 7. Record review of resident 1's EMR revealed: *The resident had a documented shellfish allergy. *The resident's shellfish allergy was not documented in her care plan. 8. Record review of resident 2's EMR revealed: *The resident had a documented shellfish allergy. *The resident's shellfish allergy was not documented in her care plan. 9. Record review of resident 3's EMR revealed: *The resident had a documented allergy to nuts. *The resident's nut allergy was not documented in her care plan. 10. Record review of resident 4's EMR revealed: *The resident had a documented allergy to chocolate, popcorn, and pork. *The resident's allergy to chocolate, popcorn, and pork was not documented in her care plan. 10. Review of the provider's undated pocket care plans revealed: *Resident 1's shellfish allergy had not been listed *Resident 2's shellfish allergy had not been listed. *Resident 3's nut allergy had not been listed. *Resident 4's chocolate, popcorn, and pork allergies had not been listed. 11. Review of the provider's 3/15/2023 Care Plans Policy revealed: *A comprehensive care plan was developed for each resident that included measurable goals and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in their comprehensive assessment. *The care plan focused on the course of action needed to attain or maintain a resident's highest practicable physical, mental, cognitive, medical, and psychosocial well-being.
Aug 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) reporting data review, interview, and job description review, the provider failed to ensure their Payroll Based Journal (PBJ), (inf...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) reporting data review, interview, and job description review, the provider failed to ensure their Payroll Based Journal (PBJ), (information of the provider's daily staffing hours for the appropriate care of the residents) had been complete and the data had been submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for one of two quarters in 2024. Findings include: 1. Review of the provider's CASPER reporting data revealed no PBJ data had been submitted for the time period of January 1, 2024 through March 31, 2024. Interview on 8/15/24 at 12:07 p.m. with executive director (ED) A, ED of support services B, and ED of human resources C regarding submission of PBJ data to CMS revealed: *They submitted the PBJ data on 5/15/24 at 11:23 p.m. central time. *It was due on 5/15/24 by 11:59 p.m. eastern time. *They agreed it was submitted late. Review of provider's undated ED of Human Resources Job Description revealed: *Responsibilities include: -Oversee the payroll department and ensure accurate, compliant, and timely payroll is processed. -Gather data and process Payroll Based Journaling (PBJ) Quarterly Report submission to CMS.
Apr 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure: *Refrigerators, and freezer temperatures were monitored and documented for one of one main kitchen. *F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure: *Refrigerators, and freezer temperatures were monitored and documented for one of one main kitchen. *Food temperatures were monitored and documented prior to meal service. Findings include: 1. Observation on 4/25/23 at 11:29 a.m. of the main kitchen revealed: *The temperatures for the front refrigerator in the main kitchen had not been recorded twice a day for twenty-five days in the month of April 2023. *The temperatures for the second refrigerator in the rear of the main kitchen had not been recorded twice a day for twenty-five days in the month of April 2023. *Both freezer kitchen temperatures had not been recorded for twenty days in the month of April 2023. *A sign on the refrigerator in the main kitchen indicated that both refrigerator temperatures should have been recorded by the dietary staff twice a day. Observation on 4/25/23 at 11:30 a.m. in the main kitchen with cook E revealed there had been no food temperatures written in the temperature log for that days lunch meal after the food temperature's had been obtained. Observation on 4/26/23 at 9:30 a.m. in the main kitchen revealed the daily food temperatures had not been recorded in the log for January, February, March, and April 2023. Interview on 4/26/23 at 9:37 a.m. with dietary director D regarding the refrigerator, freezer, and food temperature logs revealed: *He recognized the temperatures had not been recorded. *His expectation was the staff were to record the freezers, refrigerators, food temperatures, and record them in the temperature logs. Interview on 4/26/23 at 3:55 p.m. with executive director of healthcare services A regarding the temperature logs revealed the expectation was that all refrigerator, freezer, and food temperatures would have been monitored and recorded. Review of the provider's policy 2013 Food Storage policy revealed: 14. Refrigerated Food Storage: . b. PHF/TCS [Potentially Hazardous Food/Time/Temperature Control for Safety] foods must be maintained at or below 41 degrees F [Fahrenheit] unless otherwise specified by law. Periodically take temperatures of refrigerated foods to assure temperatures are maintained at or below 41 F. Temperatures for refrigerators should be between 35 to 39 F. Thermometers should be checked at least two times each day. (See Freezer and Refrigerator Temperature Sample Form in this section.) Check for proper functioning of the unit at the same time.
Jan 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure infection prevention and control practices were maintained for: *Hand hygiene and glove use during wound care by one o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the provider failed to ensure infection prevention and control practices were maintained for: *Hand hygiene and glove use during wound care by one of one licensed practical nurse (LPN) (C) and one of one director of nursing (DON) (B) for one of one sampled resident (25). *Handling of wound care supplies by one of one LPN (C) and one of one DON (B) during one of one observed resident's (25) wound care treatment. Findings include: 1. Observation on 1/12/22 at 8:39 a.m. B during a dressing change for resident 25's right foot involving his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th toes revealed: *LPN C entered resident 25's room with a roll of Coban, two plastic medication cups, and one package of non-stick Telfa. *She placed those supplies on the nightstand next to other resident belongings. *With gloves on she: -Sanitized the overbed table, retrieved a wash cloth from the bathroom, placed the washcloth down on the overbed table, and transferred the above supplies to that area. -Retrieved a bottle of Betadine, wound wash, and another package of Telfa out of his top dresser drawer, which also had other items in it including deodorant, unpackaged Telfa and Kerlix wrap, papers, and another bottle of Betadine. The drawer had dark stains and debris inside on the bottom. *LPN C then removed those gloves, washed her hands, and put on a new pair of gloves. *She took scissors from her pocket but did not sanitize them before she cut strips of the Telfa squares. *With the same gloves on, she: -Placed the squares in the medication cups and put Betadine over them, then used her fingers to ensure the Betadine had covered the surface of the Telfa. -Removed resident 25's stocking and the old dressing from his foot. -Sprayed the wound cleanser on his toes and lightly dried them but did not ensure his toes were dried in between. -Placed the Betadine soaked Telfa strips on the wounds on his toes. *DON B assisted with holding the resident's foot up with gloves on. Without removing her gloves, she opened his dresser drawer and retrieved an unpackaged roll of Kerlix and handed it to LPN C. *LPN C did not change her gloves or sanitize her hands after she had removed the old dressing. With the same gloves on, she wrapped the resident's foot with the Kerlix and Coban the placed his sock back on. Interview on 1/13/22 at 9:30 a.m. with LPN C revealed she agreed: *The scissors should have been sanitized before she used them. *Her gloves should have been changed and she should have sanitized her hands between removing the old dressing and cleansing and putting on the new dressing. *She was very nervous during the dressing change. Interview on 1/13/22 at 2:45 p.m. with infection control/registered nurse F revealed: *She had not completed any observations of dressing changes since she had been the infection control nurse. *Agreed education was needed to ensure glove use and hand hygiene were completed appropriately. *Agreed the dressing supplies should have been separated from other resident personal items. Interview on 1/13/22 at 4:45 p.m. with DON B revealed: *LPN B should have sanitized the scissors before using them. *She had not noticed the missed opportunities for hand hygiene and glove changes. *She confirmed the dresser drawer where some of his dressing supplies were had many different types of items along with the dressing supplies. *She was not aware she had contaminated the Kerlix when she had retrieved it from the dresser. *She agreed the Kerlix would have been contaminated by her gloves. Review of the provider's 12/14/17 Clean Dressing Change policy revealed: *Multi-use wound care supplies will be dated and initialed when opened. They will be maintained as clean after initial use. *Each wound would be treated individually. *When multiple wounds are being dressed, the dressings will be changed in order of least contaminated to most contaminated. Dressing of infected wounds should be changed last. *The dressing change procedure was to set up a clean field on the over bed table with needed supplies for wound cleansing and dressing applications. Those steps included: -If the table is soiled, wipe clean with sanitizer such as Sani wipes. -Place a disposable cloth [drape] or chux on the over bed table. -Place only the supplies to be used per wound on the clean field at one time to include wound cleanser, gauze for cleansing, disposable measuring guide and pen/pencil, skin protectant products as indicated, dressings, tape, scissors [clean with soap and water and alcohol prep pad]. -Perform hand hygiene and put on clean gloves. -Place a barrier cloth [drape] or pad [chux] next to the resident, under the wound to protect the bed linen and other body sites. -Remove the existing dressing and discard into appropriate receptacle. -Perform hand hygiene and put on clean gloves. -Cleanse the wound as ordered. -Perform hand hygiene and put on clean gloves. -Apply topical ointments or creams and dress the wound as ordered. -Secure dressing. [NAME] with initials and date. -Discard soiled items, gloves, and perform hand hygiene. -Clean scissors with soap, water and alcohol pad. -Perform hand hygiene.
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
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 5 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 73/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Dow Rummel Village's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Dow Rummel Village Staffed?

CMS rates DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Dow Rummel Village?

State health inspectors documented 5 deficiencies at DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 4 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Dow Rummel Village?

DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE 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 50 certified beds and approximately 47 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota.

How Does Dow Rummel Village Compare to Other South Dakota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Dakota, DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.7 and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Dow Rummel Village?

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 Dow Rummel Village Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE 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 4-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 Dow Rummel Village Stick Around?

DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Dow Rummel Village Ever Fined?

DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE has been fined $8,018 across 1 penalty action. This is below the South Dakota average of $33,159. 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 Dow Rummel Village on Any Federal Watch List?

DOW RUMMEL VILLAGE 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.