Accura Healthcare of Stanton

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

34.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 29 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 46 beds and averages 39.0 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.55 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.05 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 25% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

27 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 17 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review, policy review, family interview and staff interviews the facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision for 1 of 3 residents reviewed with a high risk for elopement (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 40.Findings include:1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #2, dated 8/10/25 did not document a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Review of Progress Notes dated 8/10/25 revealed a BIMS evaluation with a BIMS of 7 indicating moderate cognitive impairment documented. The MDS also documented diagnosis of unspecified dementia. Review of Risk Assessment: Elopement dated 6/10/25 documented Resident #2 was at high risk for elopement. Risk Assessment further documented Resident #2 was considered an elopement risk at that time, wore a wander guard and had a history of exiting the building. Review of document titled, Self Report for Resident #2 had documented on 7/3/25 at approximately 2:00 pm the Director of Nursing (DON) became aware that Resident #2 was not present at an outdoor supervised activity. At approximately 2:40 pm on…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-19 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, PASRR document review and staff interview, the facility failed to refer 1 resident with a negative Level I result for the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), who was later identified with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder or other related condition, to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASRR evaluation and determination for 1 out of 1 residents (Resident #35) reviewed for PASRR requirements. The facility reported a census of 38 residents. Finding include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #35 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating no cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #35's Electronic Health Record (EHR) titled, Diagnosis revealed diagnoses of anorexia on 5/2/25 and unspecified psychosis on 10/2/25. Review of Resident #35's EHR titled, Notice of PASRR level 1 Screen Outcome dated October 1, 2024 documented under mental health diagnoses major depression and anxiety…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-19 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, hospital record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate and timely assessment and intervention for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #38) reviewed. Resident #38 experienced nausea with vomiting for 4 days and the chart lacked vital signs or bowel assessments throughout that time period. The resident was sent to the hospital and was found to have a bowel obstruction with perforation. The facility reported a census of 38 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #38 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 (intact cognitive ability). The resident required partial assistance with hygiene, dressing and toileting. He was occasionally incontinent of urine and bowel and had occasional constipation. Diagnoses for Resident #38 included anemia, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) and urgency incontinence. The Care Plan initiated on 4/16/25, showed that Resident #38…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-19 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews and clinical record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident was provided supplemental oxygen for 1 of 1 resident reviewed. In two separate observations in the dining room, it was discovered that the oxygen tank for Resident #89 was empty. The facility reported a census of 38 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #89 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (intact cognitive ability). She required minimal assistance with hygiene, dressing, personal hygiene and was on continuous oxygen therapy. Her diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, heart failure, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, presence of cardiac pacemaker. The Care Plan dated 6/12/25, showed that the resident had the potential for actual respiratory abnormalities related to Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), shortness of breath and the use of supplemental oxygen. Staff were to assist with the tank/concentrator as needed. The Orders…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to fully develop and personalize comprehensive care plans for 6 of 14 residents reviewed. (Residents #3, #6, #25, #29, #32 & #40). The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: 1. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) of Resident #6 for July 2024 documented the resident to have an order for Eliquis, an anticoagulant medication (a medication, also called a blood thinner, used to prevent and treat blood clots), twice day due to chronic atrial fibrillation (a type of an irregular heartbeat). The Care Plan revealed a Focus Area of anticoagulant therapy, dated 5/6/24. The only intervention on the focus area stated Administer anticoagulant medications as ordered by physician. Monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift. The Care Plan failed to reveal a reason why the resident takes the medication. The Care Plan failed to reveal what side effects to monitor for or how to monitor for effectiveness. 2. The MAR of Resident #25 for July, 2024 documented the resident to have an order…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-07-22 · tag F0801 — pattern
  Employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on document review and staff interview, the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service by not having a certified dietary manager. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: On 7/17/24 at 11:30 AM, the Dietary Manager (DM) stated she passed the certification test but hadn't purchased the license. On 7/18/24 at 1:15 PM, a course completion certificate revealed she was not certified as an approved nutrition and food service manager. On 7/18/24 at 1:19 PM, the DM stated she did not have a national certification. A policy titled Personnel - General dated 2021 indicated the food and nutrition services department will be staffed to assure that sufficient, competent, supportive personnel carry out the functions of the department. On 7/22/24 at 8:35 AM, the Administrator stated the Dietary Manager was expected to have the correct dietary management certification.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-07-22 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
  Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, menu review, and staff interview, the facility failed to properly prepare pureed diets for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #27 & #20) reviewed. The facility also failed to serve the appropriate portions for 11 residents who received regular diets and 3 residents who received carbohydrate-controlled (4 CHO) diets (Resident #17, #22, and #29). The facility reported a census of 42. Findings include: The facility's Menu for lunch for 7/18/24 identified the following items to be served as part of the planned pureed textured diet: #12 scoop (2 2/3 oz) of pureed ribs #8 scoop (4 oz) of pureed macaroni & cheese #12 scoop (2 2/3 oz) of pureed green beans, no bacon #20 scoop (1 5/8 oz) of pureed bread & margarine #12 scoop (4 oz) of pureed gooey butter cake 8 fluid oz milk The facility's Menu also identified a 2-oz serving for 4 CHO diets. Record review of the Diet Orders for Residents #20 and #27 revealed both had an order for regular diet, puree texture and Residents #17, #22, and #29 had an order for 4…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary practices by improperly storing and serving food. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: On 7/16/24 at 8:25 AM, an initial kitchen observation identified the following findings: An Arctic Air refrigerator contained: 1) An unlabeled, undated clear container with sliced orange items. 2) An undated, previously opened bottle of tomato juice. 3) An unlabeled pouch of round, yellow items. An American Panel refrigerator contained: 1) An unlabeled, clear package of chopped meat. 2) An undated, partially closed, clear storage bag of sliced Swiss and American cheese. 3) An undated, previously opened jar of minced garlic. 4) An undated, previously opened bottle of Sweet and Smokey BBQ sauce. An American Panel freezer contained: 1) A box of packaged breaded chicken chunks stored on the floor. 2) An open box of exposed beef patties. The dry goods storage contained: 1) An opened box of…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement the Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) by staff not discarding Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) immediately after use nor appropriately performing hand hygiene. The facility also failed to identify areas or devices in the building to reduce the risk and prevent the growth of Legionella or other waterborne pathogens. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: On 7/16/24 at 12:45 PM, a covered, yellow isolation container in the northeast hall had PPE (isolation gowns) hanging out of it. On 7/17/24 at 8:20 AM, Staff G, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) picked up a resident's meal ticket off of the floor in front of the service window, put it on the counter, then grabbed 2 packs of plastic utensils wrapped in paper towel and took it to the residents in room [ROOM NUMBER]. No hand hygiene was observed. On 7/17/24 at 8:23 AM, an observation revealed a covered isolation bin near…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-22 · tag F0582 — isolated
  Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review and staff interview, and instructions of CMS form 10123-NOMNC, the facility failed to provide notice within the required 2 calendar days of Medicare Non Coverage for 2 of 3 (Resident #43 and #44) residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 42. Findings include: The census portion of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) of Resident #43 revealed the Resident began receiving skilled care under Medicare A payer source on 5/2/24 and Medicare continued to pay for her stay through 5/20/24. The facility provided a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNFABN) which was signed by the resident representative on 5/17/24. The facility was unable to produce a signed Notice of Medicare Non Coverage (NOMNC) form. The NOMNC form given was the typed name of the resident representative noted as t/o (telephone order) and the date of 5/17/24. The census portion of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) of Resident #44 revealed the Resident began receiving skilled care under Medicare A payer source on 11/1/23 and Medicare continued to…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to ACCURA HEALTHCARE — 41 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $434K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in IA