Avera Brady Health And Rehab
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Mitchell, South Dakota.
- Location
- 500 S Ohlman, Mitchell, South Dakota 57301
- CMS Provider Number
- 435061
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- February 26, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Avera Brady Health And Rehab during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, a history of falls, and intact cognition routinely used a whirlpool tub chair without the safety belt, despite manufacturer instructions that all users must be securely belted and facility education stating all residents are to use the strap unless refusal is care planned. The resident’s care plan noted she may or may not use the belt, but her record lacked documentation that she was assessed as not requiring it or that she was educated on the risks and potential adverse outcomes of not using it. The resident reported she was not really aware she could fall by not using the belt, while staff indicated all other residents used the safety belt unless otherwise care planned, and leadership acknowledged there was no documentation of the claimed safety education.
The facility failed to provide a written summary of the baseline care plan to several residents within 48 hours of admission, as required by policy. This deficiency was identified through record reviews and interviews, revealing that some residents, including those with severe cognitive impairments and significant medical conditions, did not receive their care plans until days or weeks after admission. The facility's misunderstanding of the regulation and delayed communication contributed to this issue.
Two residents experienced significant delays in call light response, with wait times often exceeding 30 minutes, leading to incontinence and unmet assistance needs. Both residents were cognitively intact and had their call lights within reach. The facility's policy aimed for a 10-minute response time, but this goal was not consistently met, as confirmed by the DON.
A resident was allowed to self-administer a nebulizer treatment without a self-administration medication order. An RN set up the treatment and left the room, failing to monitor the resident. The resident's EMR lacked the necessary self-administration order and evaluation. The DON confirmed that such orders are required for self-administration, and the facility's policy mandates an interdisciplinary team assessment and physician's order, which were not completed.
Failure to Educate Resident on Risks of Not Using Whirlpool Chair Safety Belt
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a safe environment and adequate supervision related to use of a whirlpool tub chair safety belt. The facility had prior South Dakota Department of Health facility-reported incidents in which two residents fell when staff did not correctly use an assistive or safety device, including a whirlpool chair safety strap. The provider’s own Bath Chair Safety education stated that all residents are to use the bath chair strap unless the care plan reflects a refusal, and the whirlpool tub manufacturer’s manual required that all residents must always be securely safety belted at the waist when using the lift systems, warning that failure to secure the resident properly could result in injury. The resident at issue was admitted with diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, degenerative joint disease of the neck, and a history of an L2 compression fracture and falls. Her care plan documented that she was offered the whirlpool tub chair safety belt but may or may not use it, and she had hand tremors. Her BIMS score of 14 indicated intact cognition. There was no documentation in the electronic medical record that she had been assessed as not requiring the safety belt, and no documentation that she had been educated on the risks and potential adverse outcomes of not using the whirlpool safety belt. Staff interviews and observations showed that, in practice, all residents used the whirlpool chair safety belt except this resident. A CNA reported that all residents wore the safety belt unless the care plan indicated it was not required. The resident stated she used the whirlpool tub chair without the safety belt and reported she was not really aware that she could fall by not using it. The DON and administrator stated that the resident chose not to wear the safety belt and that this decision was reflected in her care plan, and the DON reported she had provided education about safe use of the safety belt, but there was no documentation of this education in the resident’s record, despite the manufacturer’s instructions that all residents must always be securely belted when using the whirlpool chair.
Failure to Provide Timely Baseline Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a written summary of the baseline care plan to five of eighteen sampled residents within 48 hours of their admission. This deficiency was identified through a review of electronic medical records, interviews, and policy reviews. For instance, one resident with severe cognitive impairment due to a stroke did not receive a baseline care plan until the fourth day of her stay. Another resident, who was cognitively intact, did not receive her baseline care plan until the twenty-fifth day of her stay, and the facility was unable to provide a printed copy as the resident had been discharged. The facility's policy required that a baseline care plan be developed within 48 hours of admission to promote continuity of care and communication among staff, increase resident safety, and safeguard against adverse events. However, interviews with the director of social services and the administrator revealed that the facility did not consistently provide the baseline care plan summary to residents or their families within the required timeframe. The director of social services admitted to waiting three to four days after admission before providing the baseline care plan, which was contrary to the facility's policy. The deficiency was further highlighted by the facility's misunderstanding of the regulation regarding the timing of providing the baseline care plan summary. The administrator and director of nursing acknowledged that they had not provided all residents and/or families with the summary within 48 hours of admission. This lack of timely communication and documentation was evident in the cases of several residents, including those with significant medical conditions such as congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and diabetes mellitus, who did not receive their baseline care plans promptly.
Delayed Call Light Response for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to maintain the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of residents by not ensuring prompt response to call lights for two residents. Resident 1 reported that it sometimes took staff 30-60 minutes to respond to her call light, resulting in incontinence of bowel and bladder due to the delay. Resident 16 also experienced significant delays, stating that staff blamed the call light system for the slow response, and she had waited over an hour on some occasions. Both residents had their call lights within reach and were cognitively intact, as indicated by their BIMS scores of 15. Call light audit reports for both residents showed numerous instances of response times exceeding 10, 20, and even 30 minutes, with the longest wait times being 72 minutes and 68 minutes for residents 1 and 16, respectively. The facility's policy aimed for a response time within 10 minutes 87% of the time, but this goal was not met. The director of nursing acknowledged that a 30-minute wait was excessively long and confirmed that all staff were responsible for answering call lights. Monthly audits were being conducted, but the delays persisted, indicating a failure to adhere to the facility's call light policy.
Failure to Monitor Nebulizer Treatment
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to correctly administer medication to a resident by allowing her to self-administer a nebulizer treatment without a self-administration medication order. During an observation, a registered nurse (RN) set up the albuterol/ipratropium nebulizer treatment for the resident and handed her the nebulizer tube. The RN paused the treatment when the resident was on the phone and resumed it afterward, leaving the room without monitoring the resident during the treatment. Upon review, it was found that the resident did not have a self-administration medication order or evaluation documented in her electronic medical record (EMR), which was required before allowing self-administration. The resident, who was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, had been admitted with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. The director of nursing confirmed that residents must have a self-administration medication order to self-administer medications and agreed that the RN should have monitored the nebulizer treatment. The facility's policy required an interdisciplinary team assessment and a physician's order for self-administration, which were not completed for this resident.
Latest citations in South Dakota
Two residents experienced failures in timely implementation of physician orders and provider notification. One resident with cognitive impairment, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and a urinary catheter had a UA/UC ordered after increased confusion, but catheter change and urine collection were delayed and inconsistent, and an antibiotic order faxed for a UTI was left on a reception fax machine and never started before a later order changed therapy based on culture results. Lab reports showing Enterobacter cloacae and susceptibility to a different antibiotic were not consistently documented as reviewed, and the resident continued to exhibit confusion and flank pain until transfer to the ER. Another resident with ESRD on dialysis, hypotension, hypertension, and heart failure had orders for Midodrine with BP parameters and daily Metoprolol, but Midodrine was not given on dialysis mornings and Metoprolol was rarely given on dialysis days, without notifying the physician. Very low BPs were recorded without documented provider notification or repeat checks, despite a TAR requiring monitoring for post-dialysis complications. Interviews and policy review showed expectations to follow orders and notify physicians of abnormal labs, omitted medications, and changes in condition, which were not met in these cases.
Two residents at high risk for pressure ulcers did not receive consistent, individualized prevention and treatment measures, resulting in the development and worsening of multiple pressure injuries. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and high Braden risk, fully dependent on staff for mobility and hygiene, was repeatedly observed in bed with the head of bed elevated and sliding down, without documented q2h repositioning, individualized pressure-relief interventions, or consistent use of barrier cream, and CNAs and restorative staff were unaware of specific pressure-prevention measures for her. Another resident with multiple comorbidities, prior healed pressure ulcers, and a high Braden score developed recurrent stage II and III pressure ulcers to the coccyx and gluteal fold, a left heel DTI, and a left lateral leg stage II ulcer; ordered wound treatments were not documented as completed on at least one ordered date, he was not on a defined turning schedule despite being largely bedfast, and heel offloading and use of heel boots were inconsistently implemented and documented. In both cases, staff interviews and record review showed that facility practices did not consistently align with the facility’s own skin and pressure injury prevention policy requiring q2h repositioning, appropriate support surfaces, and systematic offloading for bedfast residents.
The deficiency centers on unsafe resident transfers and unsecured chemicals. A resident with hemiplegia and severe cognitive impairment, care planned for a one-person sit-to-stand (STS) lift transfer, was instead manually transferred by a CNA without the lift, during which the resident’s legs gave out, he was lowered to the floor, hit his head, and later was found to have a subdural hematoma. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment and documented inability to meet STS criteria was nonetheless assessed and care planned for STS transfers, while staff and family intermittently pivot transferred her without a gait belt and with inconsistent use of mechanical lifts, amid reports that pocket care plans and Kardex information were not kept up to date. Additionally, surveyors repeatedly observed an open tub room with unlabeled and labeled chemical spray bottles accessible on the tub, and an unattended housekeeping cart in the dining room with toilet bowl cleaner and other disinfectants unlocked and reachable by residents, contrary to staff statements that such rooms and chemicals were to be secured.
The facility failed to consistently honor resident preferences and care‑planned frequency for bathing, resulting in multiple residents going six to ten days or longer between baths despite being scheduled for twice‑weekly showers or baths. Several residents, including those with impaired and intact cognition, reported missed or inconsistent baths, needing to repeatedly remind CNAs, and being told they were skipped due to other residents waiting longer, staffing shortages, or equipment issues. Observations included a resident with long, jagged fingernails and urine odor who reported missed scheduled showers. Review of EMRs and the bath schedule showed numerous missed baths without documented refusals or valid reasons, while the grievance log and resident council minutes documented ongoing complaints from multiple residents about not receiving baths as scheduled. Nursing staff acknowledged receiving complaints and that residents sometimes went more than a week without bathing, despite a facility policy stating residents have the right to choose timing and frequency of bathing and requiring documentation of bathing activity or refusals.
Two cognitively intact residents with significant ROM and mobility limitations did not receive their care-planned restorative nursing programs as ordered. One resident with DM, neuropathy, above-knee amputation, and CKD reported increasing stiffness and weakness and stated that staff no longer brought her for exercises; records showed only sporadic lower extremity and kinetic bike sessions over several months despite physician orders and a care plan for regular AROM and restorative activities. Another resident with RA, polyneuropathy, and prior fractures, who used a power wheelchair, reported not receiving her prescribed exercise program and feeling she was losing strength; her MDS and restorative documentation showed no completed restorative exercises or standing with a walker despite a detailed restorative care plan. Therapy staff and RAs confirmed written restorative recommendations and expectations for 3–6 sessions per week, but reported that two RAs were responsible for about 44 residents, could not see all residents daily, prioritized those more willing or independent, and were unsure when these two residents last received restorative exercises, while the DON acknowledged awareness of staffing difficulties and confirmed the minimal restorative services actually provided.
Staff failed to maintain dignity, hygiene, and privacy for multiple dependent residents. A resident with severe cognitive impairment and depression was left in bed in nightclothes with dried food and juice on her body and linens, and was observed with a dried substance on her nose that was not cleaned over time, despite her reliance on staff for all personal care. Another cognitively impaired resident, dependent on staff for hygiene and dressing, was repeatedly observed wearing a heavily soiled shirt, with food in his beard and thick residue on his fingers, and continued to spill coffee on himself in the dining room without staff assistance or interventions; there was no documentation that he refused care. A third cognitively impaired resident with severe mental illness and risk for abuse and neglect was provided incontinence care while standing at the sink in a shared room without adequate use of the privacy curtain or window blinds, allowing his roommate and potentially others to see him during intimate care, contrary to facility policy and staff expectations.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, metabolic encephalopathy, a history of stage II pressure ulcers, and a urinary catheter was left in a dining room for about ten hours without receiving care as outlined in the care plan. The resident’s plan required repositioning every two hours, substantial assistance with toileting hygiene every two to three hours, monitoring of urine output each shift, and extensive assistance with transfers and wheelchair mobility. On the day of the incident, the resident was brought to the dining room in the morning and not returned to his room until evening, and the assigned CNA and LPN did not provide the scheduled care during this time. The facility’s investigation determined that this failure to follow the care plan and provide necessary care for an extended period constituted neglect.
A resident with a history of making allegations of rough care and a care plan requiring all care to be provided by two caregivers was assisted by a single CNA, contrary to the documented "cares in pairs" intervention. The care plan identified manipulative behavior and alleged mistreatment, and specified that two caregivers should be present to address the resident’s needs and observe the entire care session. On one occasion, the CNA entered the room alone and began providing care, after which the resident reported to an LPN that the CNA had been rough, leading to a deficiency citation for failure to follow the resident’s care plan under F684.
Two residents who required two-person assistance with mechanical lifts were subjected to unsafe transfers when CNAs used improperly sized, mispositioned, or incompatible full-body slings and did not follow manufacturer instructions. In one case, a resident newly admitted with a hospital-provided sling was lowered to the floor during a lift transfer after sliding forward in the sling, resulting in reported rib pain but no fractures on X-ray. In another case, a resident’s wheelchair pad and handle became entangled in a large sling during a lift, causing the wheelchair and resident to be lifted off the floor; the sling remained incorrectly positioned at mid-back when the resident was lifted again and moved to bed. Multiple CNAs and nurses reported no recent facility-specific training or competencies on mechanical or sit-to-stand lifts, selected sling sizes by guessing based on body type or using whatever sling was in the room, and lacked clear, updated care plan or Kardex documentation specifying lift type and sling size for residents who required mechanical lifts.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, high fall risk, and moderate pressure-ulcer risk, who required a sit-to-stand lift and maximal assistance for toileting and hygiene, was taken to a beauty shop bathroom by a CMA and left unattended with the lift attached, the door closed, and no call light activated. The resident was later found by a nurse after an extended, unknown period and had transient redness on the buttocks consistent with prolonged sitting. Documentation lacked a post-incident pain and skin assessment. Staff interviews showed there was no clear, consistent process for how often CNAs should check on residents left on toilets, and an observation revealed a staff member failed to change the beauty shop door sign to indicate occupancy, all occurring under a facility neglect policy that defines neglect as failure to provide necessary goods and services to avoid harm.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders and Notify Providers for Infection Management and Dialysis-Related Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures to follow physician orders in a timely manner and to notify providers of significant clinical information for two residents. For one resident with moderate cognitive impairment, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and an indwelling urinary catheter, the physician ordered a UA/UC after the resident’s son reported increased confusion and requested urine testing. The order for catheter change and urine collection was received and noted, but the catheter change documented on the treatment record as due on one date was not completed until early the next morning. Lab reports show urine samples collected on two different dates and times, with one sample having been collected and then recollected. The resident’s son reported being told that a urine sample had sat in the refrigerator too long and had to be recollected, and that the facility did not start the initially ordered antibiotic while the culture was pending. The lab ultimately reported Enterobacter cloacae complex in high colony counts, and the physician ordered cefuroxime, then later discontinued it and ordered nitrofurantoin based on susceptibility results. The cefuroxime order, faxed on a Friday, was not implemented because it remained on a fax machine in the front reception area over the weekend and was not found until the following Tuesday, at the same time the later order to stop cefuroxime and start nitrofurantoin was found. The cefuroxime order was not noted as reviewed by staff, and the preliminary and final culture reports, including susceptibility results showing the organism was not susceptible to cefuroxime but was susceptible to nitrofurantoin, were not consistently documented as reviewed with clear dates and staff identifiers. Progress notes document ongoing confusion, flank pain, and the resident’s belief that there was urine in her oxygen tubing, as well as the son’s concerns and request for transfer to the emergency room. The DON later documented that her investigation found the 7/11 cefuroxime order had not been started because it was discovered only when the 7/15 order to stop it and start nitrofurantoin was located, and interviews revealed uncertainty about why the UA was recollected and that the incident investigation did not address the delayed UA collection or lack of on-call physician notification for preliminary lab results. For a second resident with intact cognition and diagnoses including ESRD on dialysis, hypotension, hypertension, and heart failure, physician orders directed dialysis three times weekly, Midodrine three times daily for hypotension with a parameter to hold if SBP was 120 or greater, and daily Metoprolol Succinate ER for hypertension without hold parameters. The March MAR shows the resident did not receive Midodrine on the mornings of dialysis days and received Metoprolol only once on a dialysis day during a specified period, with no documentation that the physician was notified of these omissions. Dialysis records show pre-dialysis BPs in the low-normal range, and the MAR documents very low BPs on one evening and the following morning, with no documentation that the provider was notified of these low readings. The TAR required monitoring for post-dialysis complications, including hypotension symptoms, twice daily on dialysis days, but only one day in the month reflected documented symptoms. Interviews with nursing staff and the DON confirmed expectations that physician orders be processed within the shift, that abnormal labs and out-of-parameter vitals be reported, and that Midodrine be given before dialysis when within parameters, but also revealed uncertainty about processing timelines, lack of a facility policy on vital sign parameters, and that the physician was not notified about the inconsistent administration of Midodrine and low blood pressures. Facility policies required following all physician orders and notifying the physician when orders were not followed or when there was a significant change in status, but these were not adhered to in these cases.
Failure to Implement Individualized Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment for High-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and individualize pressure ulcer prevention and care for two residents at high risk for skin breakdown, resulting in the development and worsening of multiple pressure injuries. One resident with severe cognitive impairment, diabetes, depression, and high Braden risk was dependent on staff for hygiene, repositioning, and transfers. On admission, she had no skin breakdown but was identified as at risk. Her care plan initially addressed potential skin impairment but did not include individualized repositioning or pressure-relief interventions beyond standard admission practices. Staff and leadership later acknowledged that the pressure ulcer prevention measures in place before her ulcer developed were standard for all admissions and not tailored to her specific risk factors. For this resident, documentation showed blanchable redness to the buttocks on a skin assessment, followed by identification of a facility-acquired abrasion to the left buttock and coccyx and additional undescribed areas on the backs of both thighs. The next day, the abrasion on the left buttock was documented as a stage II pressure ulcer, which later increased in size. Observations on multiple days showed the resident lying in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated and her body bent at the chest, with staff acknowledging that this positioning increased the risk of shearing when she slid down in bed. Interviews revealed that she could not turn herself in bed and required staff assistance for repositioning, yet there was no documentation that she was turned every two hours, and the DON could not find evidence that she refused repositioning or barrier cream. CNAs and a restorative aide reported not knowing what pressure prevention interventions were in place for her, and one CNA left her in bed all day because the resident did not respond when asked if she needed anything, despite the resident’s inability to use the call light or reposition herself. The second resident had multiple serious medical conditions, including spinal stenosis, chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, dysphagia, and protein-calorie malnutrition, and was assessed as high risk for pressure ulcers on the Braden scale. He had a history of multiple pressure ulcers and other wounds that had previously healed, but subsequent skin evaluations documented recurrent redness and pressure areas, including a right gluteal fold pressure ulcer and coccyx involvement. Progress notes identified a bleeding open area under the right buttock, reclassification of a right gluteal fold lesion from MASD to a pressure ulcer, and later documentation of a large coccyx pressure area, a left lateral heel DTI, and a left lateral lower leg stage II pressure blister. His care plan listed multiple active pressure injuries and interventions such as an air mattress, pressure-redistributing cushions, wound treatments, and weekly wound monitoring. Despite these identified wounds and orders, the record showed that ordered wound care treatments were not documented as completed on at least one ordered date, and the DON agreed that if treatments were not signed as completed, they were not done, and that wounds would worsen if treatments were missed. Interviews with nursing leadership and the wound nurse indicated that the resident was not on a formal repositioning schedule, even though standard practice was to reposition residents every two hours, and that his heels were offloaded and repositioned only “as needed.” Staff reported that he often refused to get up in his wheelchair and refused heel lift boots, but refusals and effective approaches were not consistently documented. A PA-C stated she would expect preventative measures such as an air mattress to prevent recurrence of pressure ulcers, and the DON and RN unit manager confirmed that an air mattress was ordered only after multiple pressure injuries were documented. The facility’s own Skin and Pressure Injury Prevention Program policy required offering repositioning at least every two hours for bedfast residents, considering off-loading when the head of bed was elevated, and using special mattresses as indicated, but the documented care and staff interviews showed gaps between these policy requirements and the actual implementation of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment for this resident. Overall, for both residents, surveyors identified failures to consistently implement and document individualized pressure ulcer prevention measures such as scheduled repositioning, appropriate use of pressure-relieving surfaces, barrier creams, and heel offloading, as well as failures to ensure staff understood and followed care plan interventions. These failures occurred despite both residents being clearly identified as high risk for pressure injury and, in the second case, having a documented history of prior pressure ulcers and multiple active wounds.
Unsafe Transfers and Unsecured Chemicals Leading to Resident Injury and Exposure Risk
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures to ensure safe transfers in accordance with resident care plans and to secure hazardous chemicals from resident access. One resident with hemiplegia following a stroke and severe cognitive impairment, who was care planned to transfer with one staff using a sit-to-stand lift, was transferred by a CNA without the lift from the toilet to a wheelchair. During this transfer, the resident’s legs gave out, he was lowered to the floor, and his head struck the wall, resulting in a skin tear on his left forearm, a bump on the back of his head, and elevated blood pressure and pulse. A CT scan later revealed a subdural hematoma. The DON reported that the CNA had been educated that same morning on the importance of following resident care plans, and the CNA stated she did not use the stand lift because she believed she could complete the transfer faster without it. A second resident with senile degeneration of the brain and severely impaired cognition was also not consistently transferred according to her assessed needs and care plan. Her care plan initially indicated use of a sit-to-stand lift, but a lift assessment documented that she could not bear at least 50% of her weight on one leg, could not sit upright without physical assistance, and could not follow simple instructions, which meant she did not meet the criteria for a sit-to-stand lift. Despite this, the assessment summary still indicated she was to use a sit-to-stand lift for bed-to-chair transfers, and she was care planned to use a sit-to-stand lift until later revised to a full-body mechanical lift. The resident’s family member reported concerns about transfers, including that staff did not use a gait belt, that she had assisted staff with pivot transfers, and that staff sometimes used a sit-to-stand lift and sometimes pivot transferred the resident with two staff. A CNA/CMA described pivot transferring this resident with the assistance of the family member by placing their arms under the resident’s arms and moving her from bed to a bath chair, during which the resident did not follow directions or move her feet, and the CNA/CMA held the resident up while quickly pulling the bath chair under her. Documentation and communication tools used by staff to determine transfer methods were not consistently accurate or up to date. Staff reported relying on the Kardex and pocket care plans to determine how residents should be transferred, and multiple staff acknowledged that pocket care plans were not always kept current. For the second resident, the pocket care plan at one point indicated she was a pivot transfer with one staff, while her family stated she required at least two staff for a pivot transfer and had previously used a mechanical lift in another facility. Later, the undated pocket care plan for her hallway indicated she was to be transferred with a full-body mechanical lift and sling. The DON and administrator confirmed that the initial lift assessment for this resident showed she was not a candidate for a sit-to-stand lift, yet she was care planned to use one. The deficiency also includes unsecured hazardous chemicals accessible to residents in a bathtub room and in the main dining area. On multiple observations, the blue hallway bathtub room door was open with no staff present, and a pink crate on top of the bathtub contained two spray bottles, one labeled Multi-Surface Peroxide cleaner with warnings that it causes skin irritation and serious eye damage, and another unlabeled bottle two-thirds full of an unknown liquid. Staff, including a CNA and RN, stated the bathtub room doors were supposed to be closed and locked to prevent resident access and exposure to unsecured chemicals, and the DON and regional nurse consultant confirmed the presence of the labeled and unlabeled chemicals and that the unlabeled bottle did not contain water. In the main dining room, an unattended housekeeping cart was observed with residents present and no staff nearby. The cart contained an open bottle of toilet bowl cleaner on an unlocked portion of the cart, and additional chemicals, including Multi-Surface Peroxide cleanser and Micro Kill foaming disinfectant cleaner, were stored in a lockable compartment that was left unlocked, with the keys on top of the cart. The administrator verified that the chemicals were not secured from resident access and that the bathtub room was supposed to be closed, locked, and accessible only by staff, and that chemicals were expected to be stored in their original labeled containers in a secure location.
Failure to Honor Resident Bathing Preferences and Scheduled Bathing Frequency
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to honor residents’ rights to choose and receive bathing at the frequency specified in their care plans and preferences. Multiple residents who preferred bathing at least twice weekly did not consistently receive baths or showers as scheduled, and staff did not consistently document refusals or reasons for missed baths. For one resident with severely impaired cognition, the care plan dated 3/25/26 indicated a preference for two baths per week, yet electronic records from 1/28/26 through 3/25/26 showed she received a bath on 3/9/26 and 3/16/26, refused on 3/13/26, was marked as “not available” on 3/20/26 without any supporting documentation that she was out of the facility, and had no documentation of being offered or receiving a bath on 3/23/26. A family member reported concerns that this resident had only received one shower since admission and raised these concerns to the administrator. Another resident with moderately impaired cognition had a care plan dated 3/25/26 indicating a preference for two baths per week. The bath schedule showed he was to receive baths or showers twice weekly on specific days, and there was no documentation of refusals. However, bathing records from 1/28/26 through 3/25/26 showed gaps of six and seven days between some baths, including a seven‑day interval before a bath on 2/21/26 and a six‑day interval before a bath on 3/13/26. This resident reported that there were times he did not receive a bath for a week, that he had to repeatedly remind staff to get a bath, and that the days he was bathed were inconsistent, sometimes occurring every other day and other times with a week between baths. A cognitively intact resident with a care plan preference for two baths per week was scheduled for baths on two specific days each week, but bathing documentation showed missed baths on multiple dates with no refusals recorded. As a result, there were intervals of seven and ten days between baths. This resident stated he did not receive the showers he was supposed to and was unsure if he would receive a scheduled shower on the day of interview. Another resident with moderately impaired cognition, whose care plan indicated a preference for two to three showers per week and who was scheduled for showers on Sundays and Thursdays, had multiple missed showers without documented refusals and repeated six‑day gaps between bathing. During observation and interview, this resident had long, jagged fingernails, smelled of urine, and reported that showers were sometimes not provided on scheduled days or were changed, and that staff had told him he would not get a shower because the shower was being repaired. The facility’s own bath schedule listed specific days for each of these residents to receive baths or showers, but documentation and resident interviews showed that these schedules were not consistently followed. The grievance log from November 2025 through March 2026 recorded multiple resident complaints and resident council concerns about not receiving baths or showers as expected, including reports from several residents that they had gone extended periods without bathing and that staff told them they were being skipped because other residents had waited longer or due to staffing issues. During a resident council interview, several residents reiterated that baths were not completed as scheduled and described waiting from eight days up to three weeks between baths, as well as equipment issues such as a broken chair that prevented bathing. Nursing staff, including an RN and a restorative aide, acknowledged receiving complaints that residents were not getting baths as scheduled and stated that residents sometimes went more than a week without a bath, and that missed baths could contribute to odors, dignity concerns, and skin conditions. The DON stated she expected residents to be bathed according to their care plan preferences and that refusals should be documented, but she was aware of prior grievances about missed baths. The facility’s bathing policy stated that residents have the right to choose the timing and frequency of bathing and required documentation of bathing activity or refusals and reapproach after refusals, but the documented patterns and interviews showed that these requirements were not consistently met.
Failure to Provide Planned Restorative Nursing Programs for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide ongoing restorative nursing programs as care planned and ordered for two cognitively intact residents with limited ROM and mobility. One resident, with Type 2 DM with diabetic neuropathy, an above-knee amputation, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and stage 4 CKD requiring dialysis three times weekly, reported frustration that the fingers on her right hand were stiff and that she could no longer make a fist. She stated she felt weaker and believed she was not receiving the exercises she needed, explaining that she previously had exercises but no longer was brought for them. She reported that when she complained to therapy about not getting her exercises, she was told that restorative nursing aides were now responsible for providing them. Record review for this resident showed a physician note directing staff to encourage participation in restorative activities and a physician’s order for staff to encourage restorative activity three times weekly with a progress note to be completed on day shift when done. Her care plan included participation in restorative therapy with a goal to maintain current functional ability and interventions of AROM per therapy and nursing recommendations. Her MDS documented functional limitations in ROM in one upper and one lower extremity and indicated she received only two days of AROM restorative nursing programs in the seven-day look-back period. Restorative documentation from mid-December through late March showed that for lower extremity exercises she was documented as not available on multiple days, refused on several days, and not applicable on others, with only two days of restorative lower extremity exercises provided. For kinetic bike exercises over a three‑month period, she was documented as not available or refusing on multiple days, with several days marked not applicable, and only four days of kinetic bike restorative exercises completed. A second resident, who used a power wheelchair, had limited use of upper and lower extremities, and diagnoses including rheumatoid arthritis, polyneuropathy, and fractures of the right lower leg and foot, reported via an iPad translation device that she had participated in PT on admission and was discharged to a restorative program. She stated she was upset that she had not been receiving her exercise program, had complained to the DOR, and felt she was losing strength and her ability to stand and transfer. Her BIMS score indicated she was cognitively intact. Her MDS showed functional limitation in ROM in one lower extremity and no restorative nursing exercise programs received. Her care plan called for participation in a restorative therapy program to maintain functional abilities, with interventions including AROM, sitting exercises with a 3‑lb green TheraBand, trunk exercises x15 reps, and transfers involving standing with a walker up to 10 minutes. Restorative documentation from late January through late March showed multiple refusals and days marked not applicable, with no documentation that she received lower extremity exercises or stood with her walker for ten minutes during that period. Interviews with therapy staff and restorative aides revealed that therapy had provided written restorative recommendations on transfer forms, and the DON was responsible for setting up the programs. The therapy team expected two restorative aides to complete the recommended exercise programs, including upper and lower extremity exercises three to six times per week for the first resident (arm bike, recumbent kinetic bike, 5‑lb weights, green bands) and a lower extremity program three to six times per week for the second resident (standing with walker for ten minutes, 3‑lb weights, green bands). One restorative aide reported that she and the other aide were responsible for restorative exercises for about 44 residents, each scheduled for 15 minutes daily, and that it was impossible to see all residents when only one aide was working. She stated some residents were prioritized because they were ready, independent in getting to the exercise room, and enjoyed exercising, while others known to refuse were deprioritized when staff were busy. She acknowledged not having completed restorative exercises with the first resident recently and not having done restorative exercises with the second resident in over a month. The other restorative aide confirmed workload challenges, restrictions on being alone with the first resident, difficulty coordinating use of the main therapy room and equipment, and uncertainty about when either resident last received restorative exercises. The DON and regional nurse consultant confirmed that the facility’s policy defined restorative nursing as interventions to promote optimal functioning, that residents with written programs were expected to receive at least 15 minutes per day, and that the first resident had received only seven days of restorative exercises since mid‑December while the second resident appeared to have received none since late January, and they were unaware of the residents’ concerns.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity, Hygiene, and Privacy During Personal Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures to maintain resident dignity, hygiene, and privacy for multiple residents who were dependent on staff for personal care. One resident with severely impaired cognition, depression, and senile degeneration of the brain was dependent on staff for dressing, personal hygiene, and transfers with a full body lift. Her care plan required staff to use yes/no questions and clear explanations due to her communication difficulties. Her family reported concerns that she was not being changed regularly, was left in bed in her nightgown until mid-afternoon, and was not assisted out of bed to the dining room for meals. The family also reported finding dried juice on the resident’s stomach and bed sheets on consecutive days, indicating the linens had not been changed, and later finding the resident in bed around mid-afternoon in pajamas with food on her face and clothing. During the survey, the resident was observed in the afternoon with a dried green substance on her nose that remained there over an extended period, despite her dependence on staff for hygiene. Another resident with severely impaired cognition, unclear speech at times, and dependence on staff for personal and oral hygiene and dressing was repeatedly observed with soiled clothing and unclean hands and face. He was first seen lying in bed wearing a white shirt with multiple brown discolorations on the chest and arms. Later the same day, he was observed in the dining room wearing the same soiled shirt and spilling coffee repeatedly onto his clothing protector and shirt without staff offering assistance or interventions to prevent further spillage. That afternoon, he was again observed in bed wearing the same dirty shirt with food in his beard and stated he would have liked staff to change his shirt and that he had trouble with spilling food and drinks and wanted more assistance with eating and drinking. On another day, he was observed twice in the hallway with food in his beard and a thick orange substance on his fingers around his fingernails, as well as food on his shirt, with no indication in the record that he had refused clothing changes or hand and face washing. A third resident with severely impaired cognition, depression, anxiety, and a care plan noting severe mental illness with risk for abuse and neglect did not receive adequate privacy during incontinence care. Two CNAs assisted this resident in his shared room by placing a gait belt, helping him stand at the sink, lowering his pants, removing his incontinence brief, cleaning his private areas, and applying a new brief while his roommate was in bed. The privacy curtain was not pulled far enough to prevent the roommate from seeing the resident, and the window blinds were open, leaving him exposed during personal care. Staff interviews confirmed that residents’ clothing should be changed when soiled, faces and hands washed after meals or when soiled, refusals documented, and privacy ensured by closing doors, blinds, and curtains during personal care. The observations and interviews showed that these expectations and the facility’s dignity and privacy policy were not followed for these residents.
Resident Left in Dining Room for Extended Period Without Required Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a resident with severe cognitive impairment who was left in the dining room for approximately ten hours without receiving care as outlined in his care plan. According to the SD DOH Facility Reported Incident, the resident was brought to the dining room at around 8:30 a.m. and was not taken back to his room until 6:31 p.m. that day. During this period, the resident did not receive identified interventions to meet his care needs from the CNA and LPN assigned to him. The facility’s investigation determined that the resident was neglected because his care plan was not followed and necessary care was not provided for an extended period. The resident’s medical record showed he had a BIMS score of 1, indicating severely impaired cognition, and diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy and dementia. His care plan documented that he was at risk for skin impairment due to a history of stage II pressure ulcers, required repositioning every two hours and as needed, had a urinary catheter with urine output to be documented each shift, and required substantial assistance with toileting hygiene every two to three hours, transferring, and wheelchair mobility. He was also identified as being at risk for falls and was to be treated with respect and dignity and to reside free of mistreatment. Despite these documented needs, the resident remained in the dining room for about ten hours without the planned care being provided. The FRI report noted that the resident had a urinary catheter, could move and readjust himself in his wheelchair, was forgetful, and needed staff assistance with using the bathroom. Although his skin assessment after the incident did not show skin breakdown related to the event and he was not incontinent of bowels, the facility’s investigation concluded that the failure of the assigned CNA to follow the care plan and provide care during the prolonged period in the dining room constituted neglect. Interviews with the DON confirmed that the facility’s investigation found the resident had been neglected by staff on that day because his care needs, as specified in his care plan, were not met for approximately ten hours.
Failure to Follow Care Plan Requiring Two Caregivers During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
Non-compliance at F684 occurred when a resident who was care planned to receive all care from two caregivers at all times was assisted by a single CNA. The resident had a documented history of making allegations of staff being rough and was identified in the care plan as requiring "cares in pairs" with two caregivers present to address her needs and observe the entire care session. Despite this, the CNA entered the resident’s room alone and began providing care without a second staff member present, contrary to the resident’s care plan and the facility’s expectations. The resident’s care plan, initiated on 10/28/22, identified manipulative behavior and alleged mistreatment as focus areas, noting that the resident might voice allegations of mistreatment or exploitation by caregivers, related to feelings of loss of independence, and might use abusive language. Interventions included assuring the resident she was safe and secure, providing two caregivers to address her needs and observe the entire session, having supervisory personnel observe care delivery as much as possible, and offering staff of certain racial backgrounds when able, based on the resident’s stated preferences and history of accusations. On the date of the incident, the resident reported to an LPN that the CNA had been rough with her during care that was provided without a second caregiver present. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident was known to make accusations, tell inconsistent stories, and sometimes scream even before being touched, and that she was to always receive care with two staff present because of these behaviors and prior allegations. On the day of the incident, staff on duty reported hearing the resident screaming after the CNA entered the room and began helping her, then left to get a second person to assist. The CNA acknowledged going into the room alone and assisting the resident with care, thereby not following the resident’s care plan requirement for two caregivers to be present during care, which led to the cited deficiency under F684.
Improper Mechanical Lift Use and Inadequate Sling Selection for Dependent Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure safe use of total body mechanical lifts and appropriate slings for residents requiring two-person assistance for transfers. Contracted travel CNAs and facility CNAs used incompatible or improperly sized and positioned slings, and staff lacked clear, accessible information on which sling size and type to use for specific residents. Surveyors identified that staff often selected sling sizes based on visual estimation of body size or by using whatever sling was present in the room, rather than following resident-specific guidance. Care plans and Kardexes for multiple residents who required mechanical lifts did not specify the type of lift (full body or sit-to-stand) or the correct sling size, leaving staff without written direction. One incident involved a resident who had been admitted earlier that day with a full body lift sling brought from the hospital. During a transfer from wheelchair to bed using a full body lift, two CNAs attached the sling provided by the family and began the transfer. As one CNA attached the lower body sling straps to the lift hooks, the resident moved and slid forward in the sling. The CNAs readjusted the resident and completed attaching the sling, but the resident continued to move and slid toward the edge of the wheelchair seat, causing the sling to tilt downward. Unable to safely complete the transfer, the CNAs lowered the resident to the floor using the upper portion of the sling while the lower portion remained attached to the lift. The resident’s buttocks contacted the floor first, she was then assisted to a lying position, and she reported rib pain; a subsequent chest X-ray showed no breaks or fractures. This event was identified as the start of Immediate Jeopardy at F689. Another observed incident involved a different resident being transferred from a wheelchair to a bed using a full body lift and a burgundy (large) sling. Two contracted travel CNAs placed the sling behind the resident, pulled the lower straps under her thighs, and interlaced the straps. As they began lifting, the resident’s wheelchair pad and the left handle of the wheelchair became caught in the sling, causing the wheelchair to lift off the floor with the resident still seated. While the resident and wheelchair were suspended, one CNA pulled on the wheelchair pad to free it, and the CNAs switched tasks while the resident remained in the air. After lowering the resident and wheelchair back to the floor and freeing the wheelchair handle, they did not reposition the sling, which was noted to be placed too high, with the bottom of the sling at the resident’s mid-back instead of under her buttocks. They then lifted the resident again and transferred her to the bed, with one CNA stating during the lift that the setup was “all wrong.” Interviews with multiple CNAs and nursing staff revealed that many had not received recent or any facility-specific training or competencies on safe use of mechanical lifts and sit-to-stand lifts. Several CNAs reported choosing sling sizes based on the resident’s body type or guessing, and one CNA stated she relied on training from previous employers. Staff were generally unaware of which sling to use for specific residents and could not readily locate up-to-date written resources; binders that were supposed to contain lift and sling information were missing or outdated. A paper list of sling sizes found in a communication binder was acknowledged by an RN as not updated. Another RN stated she did not know residents’ sling sizes and would ask a CNA for guidance. Record review confirmed that not all direct care staff, including CNAs involved in the incidents, had completed required competencies on total body lifts or sit-to-stand lifts after the reported incident, despite having worked shifts since that time. Further review of resident records showed that for several residents who used mechanical lifts, care plans and Kardexes lacked documentation of sling size and, in some cases, did not even specify the type of lift to be used. For example, one resident’s care plan and Kardex indicated a need for two-person assistance with transfers but did not identify any transfer equipment. Surveyors also compared an updated list of transfer equipment to slings stored in residents’ rooms and found discrepancies between listed sling sizes and those actually present or documented in the Kardex for certain residents. The facility’s own sling sizing chart and manufacturer’s instructions for the EZ Way Smart Lift outlined proper sling positioning and sizing parameters, including that the base of the sling should be positioned two inches below the tailbone and the top parallel with the shoulder line, but observed practice and staff statements demonstrated that these guidelines were not consistently followed.
Resident Left Unattended on Toilet Resulting in Potential Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a resident being left unattended on a toilet in the beauty shop bathroom for an extended period, despite requiring staff assistance and supervision. The resident was later found by the charge nurse sitting on the toilet with the sit-to-stand lift still attached, the bathroom door closed, and the call light not activated. Prior to this, a CNA had noticed the resident’s room call light on, but the resident was not in his room; the CNA turned off the call light and proceeded to answer other call lights without locating the resident. The facility’s investigation identified that a certified medication aide (CMA) had taken the resident to the beauty shop bathroom earlier in the afternoon but did not inform other staff or acknowledge doing so, even though witnesses reported seeing the CMA escort the resident to that bathroom. The resident’s medical record showed moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 8, diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, unspecified dementia, hallucinations, and sensorineural hearing loss, and a high fall risk with a Morse fall scale score of 75. The care plan documented the need for a sit-to-stand lift for transfers, maximal/substantial assistance for toileting, and dependence on staff for toileting hygiene, as well as a focus on risk for pressure ulcer development related to immobility and incontinence. A Braden scale score of 13 indicated moderate risk for pressure ulcers. After being left on the toilet for an unknown but extended time, the resident was assessed by the charge nurse and found to have slight redness on the buttocks consistent with prolonged sitting on the toilet seat; the redness resolved before the end of the shift. There was no documented pain assessment or skin assessment in the medical record following this incident. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent practices and lack of clear guidance regarding monitoring residents left on toilets. One CNA reported checking assigned residents every two hours and returning to the bathroom within five to ten minutes if a resident did not use the call light, noting that longer periods on the toilet could cause redness from pressure. Another CNA stated that some resident bathrooms were too small for lift equipment, so residents were taken to the beauty shop bathroom, but there was no specific process or policy on when staff should return to assist residents off the toilet; she relied on remembering to go back. During observation, a staff member transferred a resident into the beauty shop and closed the door without changing the door sign from “Vacant” to “Occupied.” The facility’s neglect policy defined neglect as failure to provide necessary goods and services to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress, and outlined procedures for investigation and protection of residents, but there was no documentation that audits were conducted to ensure staff understood and implemented resident safety interventions related to this incident.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
