Kiowa Hospital District Manor
1020 Main Street, Kiowa, KS 67070 · Government - Hospital district · 29 certified beds · (620) 825-4117 Medicaid only — no Medicare
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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 held steady at 5 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 | 7.1% | 17.9% | 15.4% | better |
| 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 | 1.3% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.1% | 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 | 4.7% | 4.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.5% | 16.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.7% | 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 | 14.4% | 22.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.5% | 18.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.88 | 1.80 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.22 | 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 29 beds and averages 22.0 residents a day — about 76% 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 6.34 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.41 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 5.77 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.57 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-09-04 · 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 identified a census of 21 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with six residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment free of accident hazards for Resident (R)6, when Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R transported R6 in the facility van without safely securing the resident with a seatbelt in her wheelchair. On 05/08/25 CMA R abruptly applied the brakes to avoid a collision, causing R6 to slide out of her chair and fall on the floor, with her leg bent behind her. R6 cried out in pain as Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and facility staff removed R6 from the van. EMS transported R6 to the hospital via ambulance and R6 had severe pain, though the X-rays revealed no injuries. The facility's failure to ensure staff safely secured R6 with a seatbelt in a moving vehicle placed R6 in immediate jeopardy. Findings included:- R6's Electronic Medical record (EMR) under the Physician Orders dated 06/09/25 indicated 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 · F2025-09-04 · 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 21 residents, and one main kitchen. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions to prevent the potential for food borne bacteria. This placed the residents at risk for food borne illnesses. Findings included:- During the initial tour of the kitchen on 09/02/25 at 08:40 AM, observation revealed a bag of beef patties, a bag of hash browns, one bag of fish, and one bag of chicken strips were left open to air. Three cutting boards had a black substance around the edges and grooves in the boards.The pans and bowls were not inverted or covered. On 09/04/25 at 11:05 AM, the follow-up kitchen tour revealed a box of beef patties left open in the freezer area, and the cutting boards still had the black substance around the edges of the cutting boards and deep grooves. On 09/02/25 at 11:25 AM, Dietary Staff BB revealed that the staff were reminded to close the bags and to date when the bag was opened. Dietary Staff BB said the cutting boards will be replaced. The policy Food 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 · D2025-09-04 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 21 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one resident reviewed for hospitalization. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 5 a written notification of transfer to the resident and/or his representative as soon as practicable. This placed the resident at risk of impaired rights related to transfer and discharge. Findings included:- R5's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of heart failure (a condition where the heart muscle is weakened and cannot pump blood effectively enough to meet the body's needs).R5's EMR documented a Progress Note which noted R5 transferred to the hospital on [DATE].R5's EMR lacked documentation of a written notification to the resident and/or his representative, which explained the reason for the transfer to the hospital.On 09/04/25 at 07:55 AM, Social Services Staff X stated the family was provided the bed hold policy, and the Ombudsman was notified of the transfer to the hospital.…
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 before2024-01-04 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information to the Federal regulatory agency through Payroll-Based Journaling (PBJ) when the facility failed to accurately submit hourly staffing data for all nursing personnel. Findings included: - Review of the Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 1, 2023 (October 1 - December 31), the facility failed to accurately submit the Licensed Nursing Coverage 24 hours/Day for the following dates: 10/01 Saturday (SA); 10/02 Sunday (SU); 10/08 (SA); 10/09 (SU); 10/15 (SA); 10/22 (SA); 10/23 (SU); 10/27 Thursday (TH), 11/05 (SA); 11/29 Tuesday (TU);12/12 Monday (MO), and 12/16 Friday (FR). FY Quarter 2, 2023 (January 1 - March 31), the facility failed to accurately submit the Licensed Nursing Coverage 24 hours/Day for the following dates: 01/18 Wednesday (WE); 02/18 (SA); 02/26 (SU); 03/11 (SA); 03/12 (SU); 03/18 (SA) and 03/26 (SU). FY Quarter 3, 2023 (April 1 - June 30), the facility failed to accurately submit the Licensed Nursing Coverage 24 hours/Day for…
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 · D2024-01-04 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 The facility had a census of 26 residents, which included 12 residents, that included one resident reviewed for accommodation of needs. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodations related to an appropriately sized mechanical lift sling for Resident (R)4. Findings included: - The Electronic Health Records (EHR) for Resident (R)4 included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2 - when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin), chronic pulmonary edema (a chronic condition in which the lungs accumulate excess extravascular fluid around the lung tissue) and generalized weakness. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. R4 required extensive assistance from two staff for all cares except eating and received hospice services. The ADL (activities of daily living such as walking,…
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 · Dcited before2024-01-04 · 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 - R10's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed the resident had diagnoses that included dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) and major depressive disorder (a mood disorder categorized as mental health problems, feelings of sadness, helplessness, guilt, wanting to die were more intense and persistent than what may normally be felt from time to time). The 11/10/23 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The resident was dependent on staff for cares. The 11/10/23 Cognitive Loss / Dementia Care Area Assessment CAA, documented that the resident had impaired cognitive function with cognitive decline noted related to her diagnosis of dementia. R10 had chronic episodes of inattention, disorganized thinking, and the appearance of decreased consciousness where she was less responsive to others around her. The 11/10/23 Falls CAA, documented R10 was at risk for falls…
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 · D2022-02-16 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 19 residents with eight residents included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide written notice to the State Ombudsman of the 12/13/21 facility-initiated hospitalization transfer of Resident (R) 9. Findings included: - R9's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented diagnoses of muscle spasm of back, and chronic pain. The 10/13/21 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The 01/06/22 Quarterly MDS revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The 12/13/21 Health Status Note documented R9 stated her pain was unbearable and that she would like to be transported to the emergency room. Observation on 02/16/22 at 09:44 AM revealed R9 sat in a recliner in her room, was pleasant, had a smile on her face and did not appear to be in any pain. On 02/16/22 at 11:59 AM, Social Services Designee (SSD) D stated she notified 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 · D2022-02-16 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility census totaled 19 residents with eight residents included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 9 or her representative with a bed hold policy upon transfer to the hospital. Findings included: - R9's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented diagnoses of muscle spasm of back, and chronic pain. The 10/13/21 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The 01/06/22 Quarterly MDS revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The 12/13/21 Health Status Note documented R9 stated her pain was unbearable and that she would like to be transported to the emergency room. Observation on 02/16/22 at 09:44 AM revealed R9 sat in a recliner in her room, was pleasant, had a smile on her face and did not appear to be in any pain. On 02/16/22 at 11:49 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) C stated R9 was sent to the hospital due to having had bad back pain. LN C stated there was a bed hold included in a hospital transfer packet…
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 · D2022-02-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility had a census of 19 residents with 8 residents in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to perform blood sugar testing on two residents, Residents (R) 12 and R5 in a sanitary manner when Licensed Nurse (LN) C failed to clean the facility glucometer (instrument used to calculate blood glucose) after using it on the first resident and/or before testing the second resident. Findings included: Observation on 02/16/22 at 08:14 AM revealed LNC as she checked the blood sugar for R12. The nurse donned gloves and cleaned R12's finger with an alcohol pad. LN C then used a lancet (sharp object to pierce skin to obtain blood sample) to draw blood and placed a small drop of blood onto the glucometer strip. LN C then left the glucometer sitting on the counter and failed to clean it after use. Observation on 02/16/22 at 08:23 AM revealed LN C as she checked the blood sugar for R5. The nurse donned gloves and used an alcohol pad to clean R5's finger. Using a lancet to draw R5's blood, she then placed it on the strip in the uncleaned…
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.
- No harm found · Ccited before2025-09-04 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 21 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit accurate staffing information through Payroll-Based Journaling (PBJ). Findings included:- The PBJ Staffing Data Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Quarter 1 (October 1 - December 31) and FY 2025 Quarter 2 (January 1 - March 31) documented the facility failed to have Registered Nurse (RN) coverage on the following dates:10/02/24; 10/08/24; 10/19/24; 10/20/24; 10/22/24; 10/23/24; 10/29/24; 11/08/24; 11/12/24; 11/20/24; 12/03/24; 12/13/24; 12/17/24; 12/24/24; 12/27/24; 01/22/25; 01/28/25; 02/11/25; 02/18/25; 02/19/25; 02/25/25; 02/27/25; 03/04/25.Review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 for Quarter 1 and FY 2025 Quarter 2the facility failed to have Licensed Nurse (LN) coverage 24 hours a day on the following dates:10/11/24; 10/19/24; 12/03/24; 12/14/24; 12/21/24; 12/27/24.Review of the Daily Nurse Staffing Form and Payroll Data Sheets indicated the days listed above were covered with the appropriate staff with eight consecutive hours…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in KS
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 17E597. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-04, 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.