Wakefield Care And Rehab
509 Grove Street, Wakefield, KS 67487 · For profit - Corporation · 45 certified beds · (785) 461-5417 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0609) — most recent Aug 2023
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings 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
- the CMS record shows $15,593 in federal fines (most recent 2023-08-21)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.4% | 17.9% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.7% | 4.9% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 2.9% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 20.9% | 6.5% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 3.7% | 4.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.7% | 16.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.8% | 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 | 4.4% | 4.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.9% | 22.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.2% | 18.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.0% | 1.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 8.0% | 22.4% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.2% | 11.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.94 | 1.80 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.46 | 2.13 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.6%CMS range 6.7–16.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 10.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 45 beds and averages 42.4 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 3 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 4.01 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.11 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.56 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.31 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.36 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-08-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 with three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff identified a situation of abuse and mistreatment and failed to immediately report to the facility administrator (LNHA). On 08/14/23 at approximately 07:30 AM Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R entered Resident(R) 1's room and offered the resident a shower. R1 stated she would like a shower but requested assistance to the bathroom first. CMA R asked Licensed Nurse (LN) G to assist with toileting R1, who required extensive assistance from two staff for toileting and transfer. CMA R and LN G assisted R1 onto the toilet, CMA R stayed in the bathroom with the resident, and LN G stepped back into the resident's room. LN G then became frustrated with waiting, entered the bathroom, grabbed R1 by the arm, and by the gait belt around R1's waist and attempted to pull R1 off the toilet while stating she had other residents to take care…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-08-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 with three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from abuse and mistreatment. On 08/14/23 at approximately 07:30 AM Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R entered Resident(R) 1's room and offered the resident a shower. R1 stated she would like a shower but requested assistance to the bathroom first. CMA R asked Licensed Nurse (LN) G to assist with toileting R1, who required extensive assistance from two staff for toileting and transfer. CMA R and LN G assisted R1 onto the toilet, CMA R stayed in the bathroom with the resident, and LN G stepped back into the resident's room. LN G then became frustrated with waiting, entered the bathroom, grabbed R1 by the arm, and by the gait belt around R1's waist and attempted to pull R1 off the toilet while stating she had other residents to take care of. R1 resisted saying she still need to void. CMA R asked LN G to leave…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food by professional standards for food service safety in one kitchen. This deficient practice placed the residents who received their meals from the facility's kitchens at risk for foodborne illness.Findings included:- On 09/09/25 at 09:00 AM, observation in the kitchen revealed a three-door refrigerator had the following:An unlabeled, undated container of steak fry casserole.An unlabeled, undated plastic bag with salad and cheese.A three-door refrigerator located in the dry storage room had an unlabeled, undated plastic bag with sliced ham and lacked a backup thermometer.On 09/09/25 at 11:15 AM, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) BB verified the above observations, stated there should be a backup thermometer in the dry storage refrigerator, and staff should label and date all food items before placing them in the refrigerators.On 09/10/25 at 11:30 AM, observation in the kitchen revealed 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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with two reviewed for hospitalization. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the resident or her representative with the bed hold policy when Resident (R) 1 was transferred to the hospital. This placed the residents at risk for uninformed care choices. Findings included:- R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented the resident had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing).R1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R1 required partial to moderate staff assistance with lower body dressing, putting on and or taking off footwear, showering, supervision with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, upper body…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
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 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to include a hospice (a program that gives special care to people who are near the end of life) service visit frequency, medications, medical equipment, and preferences for Resident (R) 38. This deficient practice placed the resident at risk of not receiving resident-directed end-of-life care.Findings included:- R38's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke - sudden death of brain cells due to lack of oxygen caused by impaired blood flow to the brain by blockage or rupture of an artery to the brain), shortness of breath, anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear) disorder, major depressive disorder (major mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness), low back pain, demoralization (loss of hope) and apathy (lack of interest), adjustment disorder…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-11-20 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
The facility had a census of 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to employ a certified dietary manager, placing the residents at risk for unmet nutritional needs. Findings included: - On 11/13/23 at 08:05AM, initial observation of the kitchen revealed dietary staff prepared breakfast. On 11/13/23 at 08:15AM, Dietary Staff (DS) BB verified she was not a certified dietary manager. On 11/14/23 at 1:00PM, Administrative Staff A verified the dietary manager was not certified. The facility Food Service Staffing policy dated 10/2023, stated the facility will employ a certified dietary manager to oversee the day-to-day operation of food service to the residents. The facility failed to employ a certified dietary manager, placing the residents at risk for unmet nutritional needs.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise, update, and individualize the care plans for Resident (R) 27 who received insulin (a hormone to regulate blood sugar) and R39, who had pain. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for inadequate and inappropriate care related to uncommunicated care needs. Findings included: - R27's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented R27 received insulin injections weekly. R27's Care Plan lacked update or revision for assessment and monitoring for hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) or hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) or for the use of the insulin. On 11/14/23 at 10:00AM, observation revealed R27 sat in his wheelchair near the nurse's desk. On 11/16/23 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-20 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate pain management was provided to Resident (R)39 when R39 reported pain in her right hip area. This placed the resident at risk for unrelieved pain. Findings included: - R39's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R39 had diagnoses of anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear), major depressive disorder (major mood disorder which causes persistent feelings pf sadness), low back pain, and neuropathy (weakness, numbness and pain from nerve damage, usually in the hands and feet). R39's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R39 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of five, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R39 required moderate staff assistance with personal hygiene, and toileting. R39 required set up assistance with the rest…
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 · D2022-04-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility had a census of 40 residents. The sample included 13 residents with one reviewed for positioning. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided the required positioning and offloading devices, and failed to ensure appropriate wheelchair positioning for Resident (R) 36. This placed R36 at increased risk for pain, contractures (fixed tightening of muscle, tendons, ligaments, or skin which prevents normal movement) and further skin breakdown. Findings included: - The electronic medical record (EMR) documented R36 had diagnoses of spastic hemiplegia affecting left dominant side (a neuromuscular condition of spasticity that resulted in the muscles on one side of the body being in a constant state of contraction), traumatic brain injury (sudden trauma to the brain), and anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated 03/30/22, documented R36 had moderately impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed…
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 · D2022-04-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility had a census of 40 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with four reviewed for pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction). Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented interventions placed to promote healing and prevent worsening of a Stage 3 pressure ulcer (full thickness skin loss potentially extending into the subcutaneous tissue layer), a Stage 4 pressure ulcer (a deep wound that reaches the muscles, ligaments, or even bone), and a suspected deep tissue injury (an injury to underlying tissue below the skin's surface that results from prolonged pressure in an area of the body) for Resident (R)36. This placed the resident at risk for further skin breakdown and delayed healing. Findings included: - The electronic medical record (EMR) documented R36 had diagnoses of spastic hemiplegia affecting left dominant side (a neuromuscular condition of spasticity that resulted in…
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 before2022-04-13 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 40 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with one reviewed for pain. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to administer pain medication in a timely manner to Resident (R) 36, who had a Stage 3 pressure ulcer (full thickness skin loss potentially extending into the subcutaneous tissue layer), a Stage 4 pressure ulcer (a deep wound that reaches the muscles, ligaments, or even bone), and a suspected deep tissue injury (an injury to underlying tissue below the skin's surface that results from prolonged pressure in an area of the body). This placed R36 at risk for further pain and discomfort. Findings included: - The electronic medical record (EMR) documented R36 had diagnoses of spastic hemiplegia affecting left dominant side (a neuromuscular condition of spasticity that resulted in the muscles on one side of the body being in a constant state of contraction), traumatic brain injury (sudden trauma to the brain), and anxiety (mental or emotional…
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 · D2022-04-13 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility had a census of 40 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff possessed the appropriate competencies to safely administer medications per the standards of practice when a licensed nurse administered Resident (R)36 medications without verifying the medication, route, and/or dosage. This placed the resident at risk for medication errors. Findings Included: - On 04/12/22 at 10:20 AM, observation revealed Administrative Nurse E asked Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O to tell Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R that R36 requested pain medication and his water pitcher. CMA R brought in a water pitcher, pills in a small plastic cup, and a Lidoderm patch. CMA R told Administrative Nurse E where to place the patch and left the room. Administrative Nurse E asked the resident his level of pain and started to administer the medication to R36. Administrative Nurse E stated she did not know what the medications in the cup were except that they were the resident's morning medications. Administrative…
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
$15,593 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $15,593 — penalty dated 2023-08-21
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 MISSION HEALTH COMMUNITIES — 30 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
The other 29 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CORONADO OPERATOR, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/01/2019 |
| BARRES, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2019 |
| CURIS HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2019 |
| T AND C CAPITAL ASSETS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2019 |
| WINDWARD HEALTH PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2019 |
| YOAKUM, JAMIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/24/2024 |
| MISSION HEALTH COMMUNITIES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2019 |
| WAKEFIELD OPERATOR LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2019 |
| LINDEMAN, STUART | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2019 |
| SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2019 |
| THOMAS, TINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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.
About 80% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $247K 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.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in KS
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Kansas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 175272. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-10, 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.