South DakotaSisseton

Tekakwitha Living Center

6 E Chestnut, Sisseton, SD 57262 · Roberts County · 40 certified beds · avg 41 residents/day · certified since Oct 7, 1988

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$37,079
Fines, last 3 years
3.50
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 18, 2024 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Aug 14, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 18, 2024 · F-0689

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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Aug 14, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (28)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jan 22, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jan 22, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Jan 22, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately.
Jan 22, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 22, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 22, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Jan 22, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 22, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jan 22, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 22, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Jun 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Jun 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Jun 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Jul 18, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 18, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jul 18, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Jul 18, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 18, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jul 18, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 18, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Jul 18, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 10, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · from a complaint
Jan 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint
Jun 1, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Jun 1, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Jun 1, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jun 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202350F
2024102G ▲
202530E
2026100F

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)

3 fines totaling $37,079.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jul 18, 2024Fine$30,729
Nov 13, 2023Fine$2,117
Oct 23, 2023Fine$4,233

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

MeasureThis facilitySouth Dakota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.504.323.95bottom 19% in South Dakota; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.830.910.69bottom 48% in South Dakota; top 25% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.903.713.50bottom 13% in South Dakota; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.480.510.48top 46% in South Dakota; top 35% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.048.245.8
RN turnover (%)0.034.742.9

Hours are per resident per day, 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 2.67, RN 0.63, weekend 2.21. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Coteau Des Prairies HospitalOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2016
Cameron, ErinIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Coteau Des Prairies HospitalOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Gleason, DavidIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Glynn, MatthewIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Hendrickson, LeslieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Hippen, YvonneIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Jaspers, TerryIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Johnston, FayeIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
McCleerey, StevenIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Opsal, GeraldineIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Stroschein, ChadIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/16/2018
Stroschein, ChadIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/16/2018
Weaver, GregoryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Browns Valley Health Center11.9 miBrowns Valley, MN★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Wilmot Care Center INC19.9 miWilmot, SD★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF

Compare this facility with the 2 closest →

All facilities in Sisseton →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 435038.