South Dakota ›Sioux Falls

Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls Village

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

3901 S Marion Rd, Sioux Falls, SD 57106 (opens Google Maps) · Minnehaha County · (605) 361-3311· 177 certified beds · avg 161 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1990 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY (92 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jul 2, 2026
6
Serious findings on record
most recent Jul 2, 2026
$72,812
Fines, last 3 years
4.26
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Apr 24, 2025 · F-0700

The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.

Why it matters: Improperly used bed rails can trap or injure residents — in the worst cases, causing serious harm.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: May 20, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 4, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Jun 28, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 2, 2026 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Jul 24, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has plan of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 14, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Nov 1, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 19, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Oct 4, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 7, 2023 · F-0686

The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Jan 4, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 32 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual harm, isolated

    The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. F-0684

  3. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. F-0761

View all 32 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jul 2, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Jul 2, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Jul 2, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Jul 2, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550
Jul 2, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Jul 2, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Apr 24, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700
Apr 24, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554
Apr 24, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561
Apr 24, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Apr 24, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Apr 24, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725
Apr 24, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730
Apr 24, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Apr 24, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609
Apr 24, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Apr 24, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Apr 24, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758
Apr 24, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919
Apr 24, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · F-0947
Nov 14, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Sep 19, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Jun 4, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Jun 4, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Dec 7, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Dec 7, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725
Dec 7, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · F-0800
Dec 7, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have enough staff with the right skills to meet the mental and behavioral health needs of its residents, such as those living with dementia or depression. · F-0741
Dec 7, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Dec 7, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561
Dec 7, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Dec 7, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 5).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2025
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 1

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202381G ▲
202443J ▲
2025141J ▲
202661G ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

5 fines totaling $72,812.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Apr 24, 2025Fine$14,472
Nov 14, 2024Fine$7,718
Sep 19, 2024Fine$9,424
Jun 4, 2024Fine$22,055
Dec 7, 2023Fine$19,143

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilitySouth Dakota averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.26
South Dakota average: 4.32
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.77
South Dakota average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.95
South Dakota average: 3.71
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilitySouth Dakota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.264.323.95top 43% in South Dakota; top 30% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.770.910.69bottom 39% in South Dakota; top 30% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.953.713.50top 32% in South Dakota; top 25% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.430.510.48bottom 37% in South Dakota; top 43% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)40.848.245.8top 30% in South Dakota; top 38% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)43.834.742.9bottom 28% in South Dakota; bottom 46% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.75, RN 0.68, weekend 3.48.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.75 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls Village. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
SanfordOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2019
The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan SocietyOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%01/01/2019
Bachmeier, DanaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/15/2019
Bachmeier, DanaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/15/2019
Brown, GeorgeIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Brown, GeorgeIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
DTN Staffing INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/02/2024
Dykhouse, DanaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Dykhouse, DanaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Engbrecht, WesleyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Engbrecht, WesleyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Fluit, JoelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Fluit, JoelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Focusone SolutionsOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/04/2024
Gassen, WilliamIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Gassen, WilliamIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Gassen, WilliamIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Grape Tree Medical Staffing LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/13/2018
Gulsvig, NeilIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Gulsvig, NeilIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024

Showing 20 of 54 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 34 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Good Samaritan Society — 92 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 91 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
  • "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 41% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 54 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Bethany Home Sioux Falls2.3 miSioux Falls, SD★★★☆☆4/5
Good Samaritan Society Luther Manor2.4 miSioux Falls, SD★★☆☆☆2/5
Avantara Norton2.8 miSioux Falls, SD—/5abuseSFF
Dow Rummel Village4.1 miSioux Falls, SD★★★☆☆2/5
Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls Center4.4 miSioux Falls, SD★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Avera Prince of Peace5.3 miSioux Falls, SD★★★★☆3/5
Bethany Home - Brandon13.6 miBrandon, SD★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Good Samaritan Society Canton17.2 miCanton, SD★★☆☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Minnehaha, SD — 10 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Sioux Falls →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 435045.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details