The Wheatlands Health Care Center
750 W Washington St, Kingman, KS 67068 · Non profit - Corporation · 54 certified beds · (620) 532-5801 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.6% | 17.9% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 4.9% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.4% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.9% | 2.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 6.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.6% | 4.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.4% | 16.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.2% | 23.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 4.4% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.7% | 22.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.4% | 18.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.2% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.19 | 1.80 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.59 | 2.13 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 10% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 6.7–17.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.0%CMS range 4.4–16.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 54 beds and averages 45.7 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 8 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 4.51 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.45 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 4.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.67 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2024-12-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 45 residents and identified one centralized medication storage room, four medication carts, and one nurse treatment cart. Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe environment for seven residents, identified as cognitively impaired and independently mobile by the failure to ensure the medication storage room door remained closed and secured when not in use. This deficient practice had the potential to lead to accidental ingestion of prescription and non-prescription medications that could be harmful to the residents. Findings included: - On 12/04/24 at 06:15 AM, the door to the medication room located off of the main lobby was observed to be propped open by a trash can attached to the nurse's treatment cart with no staff present and remained open until 12/04/24 at 06:24 AM when Licensed Nurse (LN) K moved the nurse treatment cart and closed the door. On 12/04/24 at 06:24 AM, LN K stated the medication storage room door should never be propped open and identified the medication storage room contained prescription and…
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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-12-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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
The facility reported a census of 45 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner to prevent possible food-borne illness to the residents of the facility. Findings included: - On 12/02/24 at 09:44 AM during an initial tour of the main kitchen, refrigerator and dry food storage areas with Dietary Manager C, the following areas of concern were observed: One container of dry drink mix observed sitting on the floor, unopened. One container of dry potatoes mix observed sitting on the floor, unopened. One bottle of sweet and sour sauce with an expiration date of 09/27/24 found on a shelf. One sealed package of pork loins dated 07/20 and located in the freezer. One sealed package of beef pot roast with a package date of 01/17/23, with ice growing off of it. One unsealed/open bag of chicken wings spread out throughout the freezer, without a date or label. Three sealed bags of unknown meat, without a date or label and located in the freezer. 16 boxes of frozen food items observed sitting on the floor…
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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-12-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed transport clean and distribute clean laundry to the residents of the facility when staff failed to perform hand hygiene between resident room contacts. The facility further failed to maintain an effective infection control program related to enhanced barrier precautions (EBP - a set of infection control measures that use gowns and gloves to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDROs] in nursing homes) when providing catheter (a flexible tube inserted through a narrow opening into a body cavity, particularly the bladder, for removing fluid) care for Resident (R) 1, wound care on R9, and peri-care (cleaning of the area between the genitals and anus) for R198. Additionally, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of care for R4 regarding the use and storage of oxygen supplies that were not stored in a clean manner or changed when appropriate. These deficient practices had…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-04 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 45 residents with 12 residents sampled. Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to protect the privacy and dignity of Resident (R) 24, who stood in her room partially dressed in pants and an undergarment, when a staff member walked by R24's room, looked into R24's room and continued to walk down the hallway without intervening. This practice had the potential to lead to negative psychosocial effects related to dignity. Findings included: - The Electronic Health Record (EHR) included the diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD - a major mood disorder which causes persistent feelings pf sadness) and dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The 05/13/24 Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented R24 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 12, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The assessment documented R24 required supervision/setup assistance with bathing, eating, and oral hygiene and was otherwise independent with cares. The Cognitive…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-04 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility identified a census of 45 residents, with 12 residents sampled, and one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction). Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide a pressure reducing device on the bed to prevent a pressure injury for Resident (R) 9. Additionally, the facility utilized the incorrect size full body sling when transferring R9 in and out of bed with the mechanical lift. Findings included: - Resident (R)9 's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed diagnoses of diabetes mellitus type two (DM2-when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin) and muscle weakness. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. R9 required…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 45 residents with 12 residents in the sample and ## residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment that remained free from accident hazards for five residents. The facility failed to use the appropriate size full body lift sling for transfers with a mechanical lift for Resident (R)9. The facility failed to follow R26's care plan and left R26 unattended in the bathroom and connected to a mechanical lift, which resulted in a non-injury fall. Additionally, R1 who had lower extremity weakness, the facility failed to apply foot pedals to wheelchair, which resulted in a non-injury fall. These deficient practices could potentially result in an injury. Findings included: - Resident (R) 9 's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed diagnoses of diabetes mellitus type two (DM2-when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin) and muscle weakness. The…
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.
- Potential for harm · F2023-01-19 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 50 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain and/or dispose of kitchen garbage and refuse properly. Findings included: - On 01/17/23 at 10:58 AM, during a kitchen tour with Dietary Staff AA, revealed two dumpsters which had open lids. Several bags of garbage piled above the dumpster opening, whereas the lids were unable to close. Dietary Staff AA confirmed the findings and reported the dumpsters should be closed to maintain dispose of garbage and refuse for the facility. On 01/19/23 12:15 AM, observation with dietary staff AA, revealed two dumpsters with lids propped open over bagged garbage which prevented the lid to close and contain the facility garbage. Dietary staff AA confirmed the findings and stated staff should close the dumpster lids to maintain dispose of garbage and refuse for the facility. The facility lacked a policy for maintaining and disposal of garbage and refuge. The facility failed to maintain the dumpster area in a sanitary condition, and/or dispose of kitchen garbage and…
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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-01-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 50 residents that resided on 3 halls. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a clean, sanitary environment by the failure of housekeeping staff to know the manufacturer's contact wet times of the cleaners used to clean the resident rooms. This failure had the potential to affect all the resident areas. Findings Included: - On 01/19/23 at 09:15 AM, observation revealed housekeeping staff U as she cleaned rooms on the 100 hall. She completed a room clean, and stood at her housekeeping cart. Interview on 01/19/23 at 09:15 AM, Housekeeping staff U reported she used a disinfectant called AF-79 (a multi-purpose germicidal detergent that disinfects, cleans and deodorizes) to clean the bathroom surfaces. Housekeeping staff U reported she did not know how long the disinfectant needed to stay wet or what germs/bacteria it was designed to be effective to kill. She then looked at the label of the spray bottle and the bottle failed to list a contact wet time or specific surfaces, germs/bacteria designed to clean. She…
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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-06-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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
The facility reported a census of 41 residents, with one main kitchen. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner by the failure of staff to date open items, date and reseal opened food items, and failure to discard expired food items. Findings included: - On 06/14/21 at 08:30 AM during initial tour of the main kitchen the following expired items were observed: One can of Rotel that expired on 05/27/19. One can of diced peppers that expired on 03/15/20. One bottle of red wine that expired on 03/08/21. One jar of chicken base that expired on 06/04/21. Two jars of horseradish that expired on 04/21/21. Five bags of Bran Flakes that expired on 05/21/20. Six boxes of Nestle Hot Cocoa that had expired on 04/20. Three bags of Raisin Bran cereal that expired on 05/20. One jar of relish that expired on 04/21. 13 bags of Au Jus mix that expired on 08/20/19. The following items without expiration dates with, a one-year shelf life per the facility policy were further observed during the initial tour of the main kitchen on 06/14/21 at…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2021-06-17 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 The facility reported a census of 41 residents with 12 sampled including one for respiratory care. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for Resident (R) 24 by not changing and dating a humidifier bottle and tubing for oxygen therapy. Findings Included: - Review of Resident (R) 24's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented the diagnoses of chronic bronchitis (an inflammation and irritation of the bronchial tubes). Review of R 24's Significant Correction Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental status (BIMS) of 8, indicating moderately impaired cognition. R24 used oxygen. Review of R24's ADL Function/ Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 05/05/21 documented R24 required extensive one to two-person assistance with activities of daily living and had oxygen continuously. Review of R24's Care Plan dated 09/03/13 documented the resident required oxygen…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2021-06-17 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility census totaled 41 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure one of five residents did not receive unnecessary medications due to the failure of not providing sliding scale insulin as per blood glucose parameters for Resident (R)12. Finding included: - Review of the Physician's Order Electronic Medication Record (EMAR) dated 03/31/21 revealed R12 had the following diagnoses: diabetes mellitus (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin). Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed R12 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition and received insulin daily. Review of the Cognitive Loss/Dementia Status Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 04/07/21 revealed R12 usually understood others and was usually understood when communicating with staff. Review of Depression Care Plan revised…
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.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CUSHENBERRY, GALE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| SCHMITZ, NIKKI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2020 |
| DIXON, LANCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2015 |
| HORBERT, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/23/2015 |
| ROSENHAGEN, ROCHELLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2021 |
| WATKINS, CURTIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| WOLLEN, JULIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/28/2016 |
| HEIKES, GREG | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2021 |
| KUSZMAUL, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/22/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.
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.
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 KS
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kansas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 175521. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-04, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.