Lawrence Memorial Hospital SNF
325 Maine Street, Lawrence, KS 66044 · Government - City · 14 certified beds · (785) 749-6470 Medicare only — no Medicaid
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
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 fell from 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.5% | 73.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.6% | 22.4% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.1% | 11.5% | 12.0% | typical |
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.
75.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 385 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 51.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 208 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
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 | 75.7%CMS range 72.4–79.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 9.0–13.2 | 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 | 51.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 42.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 46.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.4% | 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 | 4.5%CMS range 2.5–6.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.65 | 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
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2024-10-14 · tag F0575 — widespreadPost a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility identified a census of nine residents. The sample included eight residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to post the required information including a list of names, addresses (mailing and e-mail), and telephone numbers of all pertinent State Agencies and advocacy groups. This deficient practice placed all residents at risk for impaired resident rights. Findings included: - On 10/14/24 at 01:48 PM, an empty resident room had a posting that directed if a resident had a concern, the resident could call the facility's patient advocate and listed the phone number. On 10/14/24 at 02:29 PM, a bulletin board in the hallway displayed thank you cards from residents and families over most of the board. Towards the bottom of the board, a laminated posting of Important Phone Numbers revealed phone numbers for various State Agency (SA) departments and the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) but did not contain the addresses (mailing and e-mail) for the agencies. A laminated posting of Questions/Concerns/Complaints revealed the LTCO and SA…
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 · F2024-10-14 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — widespreadHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility identified a census of nine residents. The sample included eight residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to implement a system to allow residents and/or their representatives to file grievances anonymously. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for decreased psychosocial well-being. Findings Included: - On 10/14/24 at 01:48 PM an inspection of the facility revealed a posting in an empty resident room that directed if a resident had a concern, they were to call the facility's patient advocate. A Resident Rights poster was located near the nurse's station; however, it did not have directions on how to file anonymous grievances. The inspection revealed there was no submission box or method for filing anonymous grievances. On 10/14/24 at 02:36 PM Resident (R)1 stated they had not been told how to file a grievance and did not know how to file a grievance anonymously. On 10/14/24 at 02:44 PM Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated there was a booklet with patient rights in it, how to file a complaint, and the facility had a…
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 · F2024-10-14 · tag F0620 — widespreadNot require residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits, or pay privately as a condition of admission; and must tell residents what care they do not provide.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility identified a census of nine residents. The sample included eight residents. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to establish and implement an admissions agreement that protected the residents' right to personal property. This deficient practice had the risk of loss of personal property, including property of monetary and/or sentimental value, and loss of dignity and personal right to property for residents admitted to the facility. Findings included: - A review of the facility's Consent to Treatment Authorizations/Agreements/Insurance assignments revealed under the section titled Personal Belongings documented the facility maintained a safe for the storage of patient valuables and recommends that residents place any valuables in the safe during their stay. All personal belongings not placed in the safe were solely the resident's responsibility and the facility would not be liable for any resulting loss or damage of such property. On 10/14/24 at 03:51 PM Administrative Nurse D stated the Health Information Management department reviewed admission…
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 · F2024-10-14 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility identified a census of nine residents. The sample included eight residents. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop a facility assessment that accurately reflected the required sections of a facility assessment including services provided, staff required, staff competencies, and religious practices. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for unidentified care needs and inadequate care and services. Findings included: A review of the facility-provided Facility Assessment revealed an undated, half-page document, titled Transitional Care Unit Facility Assessment provided by the facility on 10/14/24. The document contained the following items in its entirety: Transitional Care Unit Facility Assessment Capacity: 14 Avg daily census: 10-14 Average LOS: 14 days Common diagnosis: orthopedic, infection, respiratory, CHF, HTN dysrhythmia, CVA, HOH, Diabetes Also: CPAP, O2, IV, TPN, PEG, Trach, radiation, transfusion Activity level: CGA-dependent Staffing: Evaluation of the overall number of facility staff needed to ensure a sufficient…
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 · D2024-10-14 · 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 identified a census of nine residents. The sample included eight residents with one resident reviewed for hospitalization. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide written notification within a practicable timeframe of a facility-initiated transfer to Resident (R) 3 or his representative. The facility further failed to notify the State Long Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) of facility-initiated transfers/discharges for R3. This deficient practice had the risk of miscommunication between the facility and resident/representative and possible missed opportunities for healthcare services for R3, and placed R3 at risk for impaired rights. Findings included: - R3 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. R3's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of impaired mobility, impaired cognition, and atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heartbeat). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 07/25/24, documented R3 had a Brief Interview 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 · D2024-10-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility identified a census of nine residents. The sample included eight residents with one resident reviewed for hospitalization. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to establish a bed hold policy and provide written notification of the bed hold policy to Resident (R) 3 or his representative. This deficient practice had the risk of impaired ability to return to the facility and to the previous room for R3. Findings included: - R3 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. R3's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of impaired mobility, impaired cognition, and atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heart beat). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 07/25/24, documented R3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The Functional Ability Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 07/26/24, documented R3 had a significant decline in mobility and daily function from post-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 · D2024-10-14 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 nine residents. The sample included eight residents with five residents reviewed for pneumococcal (a disease that refers to a range of illnesses that affect various parts of the body and are caused by infection) vaccinations. Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to administer a pneumococcal vaccination to Resident (R) 107 after he consented to receive it on 09/26/24. This deficient practice placed R107 at risk of acquiring, spreading, and experiencing complications from pneumococcal disease. Findings included: - R107 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged from the facility on 10/11/24. R107 consented to receive the pneumococcal vaccination on 09/26/24. A review of R107's Medication Administration Record (MAR) during his stay revealed that R107 did not receive the pneumococcal vaccination before he was discharged from the facility. On 10/14/24 at 08:09 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated the nurse asked every resident who was…
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 · D2023-06-21 · 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 identified a census of ten residents. The sample included eight residents with five reviewed for medication administration. Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to follow sanitary infection control practices while performing blood glucose checks on Resident (R)108. This deficient practice placed R108 at risk for complications related to infections. Findings Included- - On 06/20/23 08:12 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) G entered R108's room, already wearing gloves, carrying the glucometer (instrument used to calculate blood glucose) and other supplies in her hand. LN G announced herself and told R108 she would be checking R108's blood sugar. LN G walked over to R108's bedside table and placed the glucometer and other supplies down, directly on the bedside table with no clean barrier or sanitization of the table. LN G then picked up the glucometer from the table to scan R108's wristband. LN G placed the glucometer back on the bedside table, opened the bottle with the test strips and grabbed one test strip and inserted the strip into 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.
- No harm found · C2024-10-14 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility identified a census of nine residents. The sample included eight residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to post, in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, or legal representatives, the results of the most recent survey of the facility; failed to have the last three years of survey results available; and failed to post a notice of the availability of such reports in areas of the facility that were prominent and accessible to the public. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for impaired resident rights. Findings included: - On 10/14/24 at 01:48 PM, a tour of the skilled nursing facility (SNF) lacked survey results from the most recent survey, three years of survey reports, and/or a posted sign directing where to find survey results. On 10/14/24 at 04:27 PM, Administrative Nurse D showed the surveyor a binder in the dining room area, on the railing of the other unit, not the SNF unit, that had survey results in it. The last survey results in the binder were dated 2020. On 10/14/24 at 02:36 PM,…
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.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BROWN, PATRICK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2023 |
| CASH, TAMARA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2022 |
| CHESTNUT, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/20/2024 |
| D'AMICO, SHERYLE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2020 |
| JOHNSON, RUSSELL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2016 |
| LLEWELLYN, ELIZABETH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/08/2018 |
| MILLER, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 11/05/2019 |
| MOODY, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2017 |
| QUICK, SHARI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2015 |
| SALMANS, KRISTIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2022 |
| SLOAN, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/17/2019 |
| SPRATT, SHARON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| HILMES, KELLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/31/2010 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 13 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.
What families pay in KS
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Kansas Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 175151. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-14, 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.