300 S Byron Blvd, Chamberlain, SD 57325 (opens Google Maps) · Brule County · (605) 234-6518· 44 certified beds · avg 41 residents/day · certified since Feb 1, 1983 · Medicaid only — not Medicare certified
Certified for Medicaid only. It cannot bill Medicare, so a short post-hospital rehabilitation stay would not be covered the usual way here. Who pays for nursing home care →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jan 9, 2025 · 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 (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: Feb 8, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Oct 31, 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 (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: Nov 29, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 12, 2025 · 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: Jul 11, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 12, 2025 · 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 11, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 27, 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: Jan 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 27, 2024 · F-0692 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.
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 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 31, 2024 · F-0699 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Why it matters: Care that ignores a resident's trauma or culture can cause distress and damage their trust in caregivers.
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 29, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 11, 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: Jul 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 16 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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. · from a complaint F-0600
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 14, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 12, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jun 12, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Jun 12, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Dec 27, 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 |
| Dec 27, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| Dec 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · from a complaint · F-0699 |
| Oct 31, 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Jul 11, 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 |
| Jul 11, 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 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Jul 11, 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 2).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 10 | 5 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 6 | 3 | J ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
4 fines totaling $124,961.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2025 | Fine | $43,095 |
| Dec 27, 2024 | Fine | $49,982 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | Fine | $22,465 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | Fine | $9,419 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.28 | 4.32 | 3.95 | top 41% in South Dakota; top 30% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.79 | 0.91 | 0.69 | bottom 43% in South Dakota; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.01 | 3.71 | 3.50 | top 29% in South Dakota; top 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.37 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 25% in South Dakota; bottom 45% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 56.9 | 48.2 | 45.8 | bottom 24% in South Dakota; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 30.0 | 34.7 | 42.9 | top 50% in South Dakota; top 29% 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 3.69, RN 0.68, weekend 3.46.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.69 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Sanford Chamberlain Care Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aurora Brule Nursing Home INC | 31.1 mi | White Lake, SD | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Platte Care Center | 37.2 mi | Platte, SD | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Avera Rosebud Country Care Center | 38.9 mi | Gregory, SD | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Winner Regional Healthcare Center | 38.9 mi | Winner, SD | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 43A073.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details