Tallgrass Creek, INC
13760 Metcalf Avenue, Overland Park, KS 66223 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 44 certified beds · (913) 945-2350 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $7,446 in federal fines (most recent 2023-10-16)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 4 to 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 | 16.2% | 17.9% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.7% | 4.9% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 1.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.0% | 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 | 4.2% | 4.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.8% | 16.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.0% | 23.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 4.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.2% | 22.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.1% | 18.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.8% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.9% | 73.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 44.3% | 22.4% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.4% | 11.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.14 | 1.80 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.31 | 2.13 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
49.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 61 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.1% 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 47 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 49.2%CMS range 40.4–61.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.3%CMS range 8.3–15.8 | 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 | 68.1% | 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 | 78.7% | 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 | 59.6% | 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 | 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 | 96.8% | 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 | 6.6% | 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 | 1.6% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 3.5–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.76 | 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 44 beds and averages 39.4 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.87 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.15 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.68 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 4.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.10 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.40 to 0.54 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
17 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-10-16 · 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
The facility identified a census of 43 residents. The sample included two residents reviewed for elopement (when a cognitively impaired resident leaves the facility without the knowledge or supervision of staff) risk. Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to cognitively impaired Resident (R) 1, who was at risk for elopement and exited the facility. On 10/06/23 at 06:21 PM R1 pressed on an exit door for 30 seconds, which opened the door. The door alarm sounded, but the staff failed to promptly respond to the alarm. R1 wore a WanderGuard (bracelet that sets off an alarm when residents wearing one attempt to exit the building without an escort) on her wheelchair, which alarmed as well, but staff failed to respond. An Independent Living (IL) resident in the parking lot saw R1 outside of the facility and brought R1 back into the facility near the kitchen, where Dietary staff BB then escorted R1 to the nurse's station. R1 was outside unattended for approximately four minutes, and it was seven minutes before staff were…
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 · Ecited before2026-02-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 41 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections when the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP - infection control interventions designed to reduce transmission of resistant organism which employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact care) were used for Resident (R) 18, who had a Foley catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a collection bag). Findings included: - On 02/24/26 at 10:30 AM, observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N donned clean gloves, placed a chuck (a disposable absorbent pad) on the floor, and placed a plastic container on top of it. She emptied the catheter bag and started to pick up the plastic container that was full of urine when CNA M told her to set it back down on the floor and handed her a yellow disposable gown. CNA N stated that she did not realize she needed…
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 · D2026-02-25 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 41 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an appropriate indication, or a documented physician rationale for the continued use of Resident (R) 13's antipsychotic (a medication used to treat any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment testing) medication. This placed R13 at risk for unintended effects related to psychotropic (alters mood or thought) drug medications. Findings included: - R13's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) recorded diagnoses of dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion) mood disturbance (category of mental health problems, feelings of sadness, helplessness, guilt, and wanting to die were more intense and persistent than what may normally be felt from time to time) and anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear).…
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 · D2026-02-25 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 41 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with eight reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Consult Pharmacist identified and reported the lack of appropriate indication, or a required physician documentation, for Resident (R) 13's use of an antipsychotic (a class of medication used to treat any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment testing) medication. This placed R13 at risk for unintended effects related to psychotropic (alters mood or thoughts) drug medication. Findings include: - R13's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) recorded diagnoses of dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion) mood disturbance (category of mental health problems, feelings of sadness, helplessness, guilt, and wanting to die were more intense and persistent than what may normally be felt from time to time) and anxiety (mental or emotional reaction…
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 · Ecited before2024-05-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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
The facility had a census of 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents with two reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from hazardous materials for nine cognitively impaired independently mobile residents. The facility additionally failed to ensure an environment free from avoidable accidents for Resident (R)15 who was injured during a lift-assisted transfer. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for preventable accidents and injuries. Findings Included: - On 05/06/24 at 07:10 AM an initial walkthrough of the facility was completed. An inspection of the west hall's laundry room revealed the door was unlocked. An inspection of the room revealed a bottle of Oxivir-TB spray (disinfectant that kills bacteria and viruses) left on top of the washing machine. The bottle contained the warning, Keep out of reach of children, hazardous to humans can cause eye irritation, harmful if swallowed. An inspection of the west hall also revealed an unlocked spa room. The spa room contained an…
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 · E2024-05-08 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The facility had two medication rooms. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to the facility failed to ensure an accurate reconciliation of controlled medications (substances that have an accepted medical use, and have a potential for abuse, ranging from low to high, and may also lead to physical or psychological dependence) was completed consistently. This placed residents at risk of medication misappropriation, diversion, and ineffective medication regimens. Findings included: - On 05/06/24 at 10:47 AM, observation of the west wing medication room revealed the daily controlled medication record log from 04/20/24 to 05/06/24 lacked evidence of two nurse signatures indicating a reconciliation was completed on 10 of 72 opportunities. On 05/06/24 at 10:50 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated that the count sheet should be signed by the off-going nurse and the on-coming nurse at the beginning and the end of each shift after the narcotic (controlled medications) count had been completed and the medication…
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 · E2024-05-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 identified a census of 42 residents. The facility had one main kitchen and one kitchenette and dining area. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff stored, prepared and served food items and maintained the freezer unit in accordance with the professional standards for food service safety. This placed residents at risk of foodborne illness and cross-contamination (the transfer of harmful substances to food). Findings included: - On 05/06/24 at 07:12 AM the initial tour of the kitchen revealed the following: in the walk-in freezer there was an opened box and bag of breaded chicken strips that was not in a sealed bag and lacked an open date. The walk-in freezer unit had frozen water icicles that had dropped onto an opened box of food below it. On 05/07/24 at 10:24 AM during the preparation of the puree foods, Dietary Staff CC failed to properly wash and sanitize the Robo coupe (a food processing machine used to puree foods) container and lid in between each food item that was pureed. On 05/08/24 at 10:48 AM Dietary Staff EE stated that he…
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 · Ecited before2024-05-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control standards were followed during shared equipment use, transport of clean linens, and storage of Resident (R)12's oxygen therapy equipment. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for infectious diseases. Findings Included: - On 05/06/24 at 07:15 AM an inspection of R12's bathroom revealed her supplemental oxygen face mask and two oxygen connector ports stored on a paper towel on a shared sink. On 05/07/24 at 08:44 AM, an unidentified nurse completed blood pressure checks for R29 and R136. The nurse failed to sanitize the shared blood pressure equipment in between taking the residents' vitals. On 05/07/24 at 09:49 AM staff pushed the Hoyer (total body mechanical lift) lift into R28's room. Staff then transferred R28 from his bed to his wheelchair. The Hoyer lift was then pushed by staff back out to the hallway without sanitizing the machine before or after use. On 05/07/24 at 02:24 PM 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 · Dcited before2024-05-08 · 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 identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents with one resident reviewed for dignity. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a dignified care environment for Resident (R)23. This placed R23 at risk for impaired dignity and quality of life. Findings Included: - R23's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, and confusion), cognitive-communication disorder, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and aphasia (difficulty speaking). R23's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed 03/27/24 indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not completed due to severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated she required maximal assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, personal hygiene, and bathing. The MDS indicated she had unclear speech and was rarely understood. R23's Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA) completed 12/26/23 indicated she was severely impaired related to her advanced dementia and aphasia. 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 · D2024-05-08 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The facility had one main kitchen and one kitchenette area. The facility had two residents that required a pureed diet. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff prepared food that conserved the nutritive value, flavor, and appearance when preparing pureed foods. This placed the residents who received pureed foods at risk of decreased palatability and impaired nutritional status. Findings included: - On 05/07/24 at 10:24 AM observation during the preparation of the pureed foods revealed that Dietary Staff (DS) CC obtained two servings of the baked tilapia (fish) and placed them into the Robo coupe (a food processing machine used to finely chop/puree foods) container and then obtained an undetermined amount of water from the faucet and poured the unmeasured amount of water into the pureed container. DS CC turned the machine on until the food and water were mixed. The finished pureed product was poured into a clean metal storage container and covered with plastic wrap. 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 · Dcited before2024-05-08 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 28's therapeutic diet as ordered by his physician. This deficient practice placed R28 at risk for complications including choking. Findings included: - R28's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, and confusion) and Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure). R28's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 02/28/24 noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was unable to be done and no staff interview was completed. The MDS noted that R28 required substantial to maximum assistance from staff for eating. The MDS documented R28 had difficulty or pain with swallowing. R28's Care Plan dated 09/06/23 documented an intervention dated 04/24/24 which directed R28's diet was changed to pureed, with nectar thick liquids. The plan documented R28 required total…
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.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control standards of practice. The facility failed to appropriately store/cover residents' clean laundry. The facility failed to properly store the scoop for an ice machine in a sanitary manner. This placed the residents at risk for increased infection and transmission of communicable disease. Findings included: - An observation on 10/25/22 at 07:18 AM revealed multiple uncovered laundry baskets of clean residents clothing sat on the floor outside of the resident rooms (rooms 116, 117, 126,128, 129. 130, 133, 142, and 144). An observation on 10/25/22 at 07:41 AM revealed a community ice machine scoop rested directly on a shelf with no barrier present and no cover. On 10/27/22 at 2:00 PM Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M stated that the clean laundry was transported uncovered in each resident's basket. On 10/27/22 at 02:37 PM Administrative Nurse E stated the ice scoop should have had a barrier to be…
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 before2022-10-27 · 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 identified a census of 43 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to promote a dignified dining experience during meal service for Resident (R)17, R26, and R28. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for impaired dignity and decreased psychosocial well-being. Findings Included: - On 10/25/22 at 11:55AM R28 attempted to eat his meal in the dining room. R28 sat across from R26 (severely physically and cognitively impaired resident). R26 struggled to eat his meal and began coughing. R26 was unable to cover his mouth due to his physical impairment and coughed in the direction of R26's plate and drink. Staff did not intervene or help R26 during this time. At 12:05PM R28 requested to be moved to a different table and stated, I can't enjoy my meal with him coughing all over my food. R28 was moved to a different table close to the window. On 10/25/22 at 12:15PM R17 was transported into the dining room for his lunch in his Broda Chair (specialized wheelchair with the ability to tilt and recline). While being transported…
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 · D2022-10-27 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)26's assistance with eating to prevent aspiration (inhaling liquid or food into the lungs) during his meals. This deficient practice placed him at risk for aspiration and related complications. Findings Included: -The Medical Diagnosis section within R26's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness), Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), dysphagia (swallowing difficulty), chronic kidney disease, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD- progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), and history of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-10-27 · 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 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with four residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to follow Resident (R) 24's plan of care which directed extensive assistance of two staff members for transfers. This placed R24, who had a history of falls, at increased risk for accidents and potential major injuries related to falls. Findings included: - R24's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) from the Diagnoses tab documented diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), instability right knee and repeated falls. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of three which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R24 required extensive assistance of two staff members for activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS documented R24 had one fall with major…
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 · D2022-10-27 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to establish an individualized bowel and bladder programs for Resident (R)16 and R34. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for complications related to incontinence and increased incontinence. Findings Included: -The Medical Diagnosis section within R16's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of major depressive disorder (major mood disorder), moderate weakness, epilepsy (brain disorder characterized by repeated seizures), chronic pain syndrome, lack of coordination, overactive bladder, and arthritis (inflammation of a joint characterized by pain, swelling, heat, redness and limitation of movement). A review of R16's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 08/26/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated…
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 before2022-10-27 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
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 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for specialized diets. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 26's physician ordered nectar thick liquids during meal service. This deficient practice placed him at risk for complications related to aspiration (inhaling liquid or food into the lungs) . Findings Included: - The Medical Diagnosis section within R26's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness), Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), dysphagia (swallowing difficulty), chronic kidney disease, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD- progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), and history of unspecified…
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
$7,446 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $7,446 — penalty dated 2023-10-16
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ERICKSON SENIOR LIVING — 17 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 16 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL SENIOR COMMUNITIES, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 01/14/2021 |
| BROWN, IAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| BROWN, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| CLUPPER, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| COLINS, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| ERSTAD, EILEEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| JACQUE, ZINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/16/2014 |
| LEONARD, MONTY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| MOSCATO, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| PAULK, PAMELA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| POMERANZ, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| REEL, STEPHANIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| ROSKIEWICZ, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2019 |
| SHARP, RUSSEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| WALLICK, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| EMBLEY, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/27/2021 |
| GANTERT, NEAL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| HALL, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/16/2014 |
| SAWICKI, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| STINER, PAMELA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| TYLER, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| ERICKSON SENIOR LIVING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/07/2025 |
| BELCHER, WENDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/11/2025 |
| BUTLER, RICHARD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| MARTIN, SONYA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/22/2022 |
| SWEETSER, CHRISTIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| BISON, MICHAEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/22/2025 |
| RIDLEY, FRED | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/22/2025 |
| SONES, RANDALL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/22/2025 |
| OAK INVESTMENT TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| OAK INVESTMENT TRUST II | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 48 rows in the source record cover these 31 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $5.3M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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.
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 175541. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-25, 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.