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: ACCURA HEALTHCARE (41 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)
1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 21, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 16, 2024
$102,440
Fines, last 3 years
3.77
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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)
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 (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Oct 3, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
The 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.
Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.
Severity (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Oct 3, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 16, 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 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The 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
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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
View all 21 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.
Date
Severity
What the facility was cited for
Aug 21, 2025
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The 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
Aug 21, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Aug 21, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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
Oct 16, 2024
▲ 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
Sep 5, 2024
▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, 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
Sep 5, 2024
▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern
The 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
Sep 5, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Sep 5, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · F-0727
Sep 5, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The 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
Sep 5, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · F-0835
Sep 5, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867
Sep 5, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not give all staff the required training on its quality improvement program — the internal system for finding problems and making care better. · F-0944
Sep 5, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The 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
Sep 5, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582
Sep 5, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Sep 5, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Sep 5, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Sep 5, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Sep 5, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Sep 5, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Sep 5, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (17 → 3).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations:
18
Serious citations (G–L):
3
2025
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2024
18
3
K ▲
2025
3
0
E
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.
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.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Oct 16, 2024
Fine
$10,839
Sep 5, 2024
Fine
$91,601
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
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:
3.77
South Dakota average:
4.32
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.66
South Dakota average:
0.91
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.58
South Dakota average:
3.71
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
South Dakota avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
3.77
4.32
3.95
bottom 39% in South Dakota; top 50% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.66
0.91
0.69
bottom 24% in South Dakota; top 41% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.58
3.71
3.50
top 47% in South Dakota; top 39% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.46
0.51
0.48
bottom 48% in South Dakota; top 38% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
38.2
48.2
45.8
top 23% in South Dakota; top 32% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
37.5
34.7
42.9
bottom 37% in South Dakota; top 42% 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 3.15, RN 0.55, weekend 2.99.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.15 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Lake Andes Senior Living. 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.
All 10 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Accura Healthcare — 41 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.
CMS records place this facility in Charles Mix, SD — 3 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 435097.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
The Care File
Visit checklist — Lake Andes Senior Living
740 East Lake St, Lake Andes, SD 57356 · (605) 487-7674
Health inspection rating 1/5 · CMS overall 1/5· Fines (3y): $102,440
Most serious findings on record:
▲ Sep 5, 2024 (F-0684, Immediate jeopardy, pattern): The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Sep 5, 2024 (F-0880, Immediate jeopardy, pattern): The 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.
▲ Oct 16, 2024 (F-0689, 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.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
☐ "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
☐ "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
☐ "How does your quality committee work, and can you give an example of a problem it recently identified and fixed?"
☐ "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 38% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 435097 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)