No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Wellington Health And Rehab

1600 W 8th Street, Wellington, KS 67152 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 44 certified beds · (620) 326-2232 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (620) 326-2232 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 12 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
110 N Washington Ave · (620) 326-2020 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1111 W 8th St · (620) 326-5981 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2022 E 16th St · (620) 326-2261 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Donut Bay0.5 mi
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1419 Western Ave · (620) 326-3581

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased15.4%17.9%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight15.7%4.9%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.6%1.6%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.0%2.9%2.0%typical
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%6.5%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.3%4.3%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened13.2%16.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication28.0%23.2%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.1%4.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control21.1%22.6%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table8.9%18.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.9%1.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission8.9%22.4%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit3.1%11.5%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.721.801.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.292.131.80better

* 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.

60.4% 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 47 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

60.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
50.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.27U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.14hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 24 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF60.4%CMS range 44.2–70.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.9%CMS range 6.2–14.110.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge50.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge50.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge41.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified96.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization9.2%CMS range 5.0–15.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.061.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.60
RN hours/ resident / day
0.48
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.40
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.48
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.38
RN hoursweekends
33.3%
Total nursing turnover
0.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 44 beds and averages 36.6 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.482 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.40 is below 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 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.62 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-08-26)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2023-11-01)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

  • Potential for harm · F2025-08-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    The facility reported a census of 43 residents, and one main kitchen. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions to prevent the potential for food borne bacteria. This placed the residents at risk for food borne illnesses. Findings included:- Observation of the kitchen and food storage areas on 08/24/25 at 09:40 AM revealed the following areas of concern:Walk-In Cooler:A white Styrofoam cooler on the top shelf, with no date and no label, contained several rolled-up items in foil. Dietary Staff CC opened one of the foil packets and reported it was hot dogs from a facility picnic the previous Thursday.Free-standing freezer:One bag of cooked bacon with no date or label.One brown bag in a zip lock bag with no date or label.One bag of sealed French fries with no date.One bag of hash browns unsealed.One bag of ready-to-bake chocolate chip cookies with no date or label.During an interview on 08/24/25 at 10:10 AM, Dietary Staff CC reported that all food items required an open date and were required to be sealed…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 43 resident. The sample included 12 residents with three residents sampled for accidents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a thorough root cause analysis to identify causative factors and/or failed to implement the care planned interventions to prevent further falls for Resident(R) 38 and R28. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for further falls and associated injuries. Findings included- R38's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented diagnoses which included dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion), a history of falling, and muscle weakness. R38’s 03/25/25 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented R38 required supervision with most activities of daily living (ADLs), except set up for wheelchair mobility, bed mobility, and upper dressing. The MDS…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-08-26 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
    Provide 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 reported a census of 43 resident. The sample included 12 residents with two residents sampled for pain management. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor, treat and provide interventions including medication and non-pharmacological measures to manage Resident (R) 28's pain in accordance with his goals and preferences. This deficient practice placed the resident at risk for unmanaged pain, a decline in function and impaired quality of life. Findings included- R28's Physician Orders dated 08/20/25, documented diagnoses of neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (dysfunction of the urinary bladder caused by a lesion of the nervous system,) hypertension (high blood pressure), type 2 diabetes (DM-when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin), anxiety disorder (mental or emotional disorder characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear), psychosis (any major mental 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 43 resident; there were 12 residents in the sample. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection program related to. Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP- infection control interventions designed to reduce transmission of resident organisms which employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact care) when providing dressing changes on a abdominal peritoneal dialysis (a home-based treatment for kidney failure that uses the patient's own abdominal lining as a filter to remove waste and excess fluid from the blood) catheter for Resident (R) 2. This placed the resident at risk for infection. Findings included:- R2's Physician Orders in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) dated 08/19/25 revealed the following diagnoses: chronic kidney disease stage five (a condition where the kidneys gradually lose their ability to filter waste products from the blood) and type two diabetes (DM-when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-11-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 12 residents included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure good infection control techniques for residents in the facility by the failure to change gloves and perform hand hygiene when going from soiled to clean while providing wound care for one resident, Resident (R18), and while providing incontinent care on residents and the failure to disinfect the full body mechanical lift after use on R7 who required use of the lift for transfers. Findings included: - Observation on 10/31/23 at 02:20 PM revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) E and CNA F entered R7's room. Both staff donned (applied) gloves. CNA E first took a tissue and wiped a large amount of mucous from the resident's left nostril. Staff pulled R7's covers down and the disposable brief the resident wore was untaped and pulled down in front. CNA E used wet wipes and spray cleaner to clean the resident's genital area in front, then both CNAs repositioned the resident, and CNA E proceeded to use wipes and spray…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 12 selected for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one sampled resident, Resident (R)35, related to the use of the resident's continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP, a non-invasive mechanical ventilator that provides respiratory support to decrease the work of breathing) machine. This placed the resident at risk for uncommunicated care needs. Findings include: - The 02/27/23 Electronic Health Records (EHR) documented R35 had the following diagnoses that included echinococcus granulosis infection of the lung (a parasitic infection that causes cysts and tumor-like growths), malignant neoplasm (cancer) of the lower respiratory tract (lung) and pneumonitis (inflammation of lung tissue) due to inhalation of solids and liquids. The 09/28/23 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition.…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 12 selected for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan for Resident (R)35, related to the use of the resident's continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP, a non-invasive mechanical ventilator that provides respiratory support to decrease the work of breathing) machine. This placed the resident at risk for uncommunicated care needs. Findings include: - The 02/27/23 Electronic Health Records (EHR) documented R35 had the following diagnoses that included echinococcus granulosis infection of the lung (a parasitic infection that causes cysts and tumor-like growths), malignant neoplasm (cancer) of the lower respiratory tract (lung) and pneumonitis (inflammation of lung tissue) due to inhalation of solids and liquids. The 09/28/23 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. R35 required limited or extensive assistance of two staff for all cares except eating…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 reported a census of 40 residents with 12 residents selected for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to address edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues) for Resident (R) 140's lower extremities. This deficient practice had the potential to place R140 at an increased risk for development of additional medical problems. Findings included: - R140's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) included a diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF - a condition with low heart output and the body slowly becomes congested with fluid), localized edema and diabetes mellitus, type 2 (DM2 - when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin). The 10/23/23 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition. No behaviors documented with rejections of cares. R140 received a diuretic (a class of medications used promote the formation and excretion of urine) 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2022-04-14 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespread
    Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure ongoing antibiotic stewardship to ensure appropriate antibiotic use. Findings included: - Review of the notebook containing a log of infection tracking for January 2022, revealed a Physician Order, dated 01/05/22, instructed staff to administer to resident (R)24, Cephalexin (anantibiotic) 500 milligrams (mg), twice a day, for urinary tract infection, but lacked culture results. This resident's medical record lacked the IDT (Inter Departmental Team) assessment for antibiotic use compliance utilizing assessment tools such as Loeb's ( a criteria with a minimum set of signs and symptoms which when met indicate that the resident likely has an infection and antibiotics may be indicated) or McGeer's criteria (a tool used for identification of symptoms of infection for antibiotic use.) Review of the infection tracking log for February 2022, revealed two unsampled residents admitted to the facility from acute care on antibiotics for urinary tract infections, but lacked…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 34 residents with 15 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate safety measures were used while staff ambulated Resident (R)133. The resident fell and received a skin tear to the resident's right wrist. Findings included: - Resident (R)133's electronic medical record (EMR), under the Med Diagnosis tab, included: congestive heart failure (CHF) -a condition with low heart output and the body becomes congested with fluid) and altered mental status (an abnormal state of alertness or awareness). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine, indicating moderately impaired cognition. He required limited assistance of one staff for walking in his room. His balance was not steady and he was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. He had no impairment in functional range 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-04-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide 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 reported a census of 34 residents with 15 residents sampled, including one Resident (R)23 reviewed for bowel and bladder. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to toilet this dependent resident, as care planned. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 04/08/22, documented Resident (R)23 had diagnoses of cognitive deficit (failing memory) and type II diabetes mellitus (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin). The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff for toileting. She was incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. The Urinary Incontinence and Indwelling Catheter Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 03/22/22, documented the resident relied on the staff for toileting and proper perineal…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2025-08-26 · tag F0732 — widespread
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    The facility reported a census of 43 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post Nurse Staffing information for Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Certified Nurse Aides, the resident census, and the total number of actual hours worked by each category, daily as required. Findings included: - Review of Daily Staff Posting Sheets, dated 07/01/24 through 12/31/24, and 08/15/25 through 08/25/25, revealed the facility lacked adjustment to the Daily Staff Posting Sheets, for actual staff hours worked versus scheduled hours worked by the direct care staff.On 08/26/25 at 10:36 AM, Administrative Staff B reported her responsibilities included to make sure all the lunches were removed for any hourly employee on a monthly basis and the nursing hours were accurately submitted to the corporate office. She verified she did not report or address the redesignation or call-in coverage otherwise.On 08/26/25 at 03:38 PM, Administrative Staff A confirmed the Daily Staff Posting Sheets, noted above, lacked documentation to reflect the adjustments…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 52.8+2.2 vs chain
Health inspection 5 of 52.9+2.1 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 52.9+1.1 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 52.9+2.1 vs chain
The other 29 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
1 of 5Colby Operator, LLCColby, KS 1 of 5Dickson Health And RehabDickson, TN 1 of 5Hutchinson Operator, LLCHutchinson, KS 1 of 5Kaw River Care And RehabEdwardsville, KS 1 of 5Lincoln Care And RehabWichita, KS 1 of 5North Ridge Health And RehabNew Hope, MN 1 of 5Providence Living CenterTopeka, KS 2 of 5Columbus Health and RehabColumbus, WI 2 of 5Edwardsville Care And RehabEdwardsville, KS 2 of 5El Dorado Care And RehabEl Dorado, KS 2 of 5Spring Hill Care And RehabSpring Hill, KS 3 of 5Chase County Care And RehabCottonwood Falls, KS 3 of 5Eskridge Care And RehabEskridge, KS 3 of 5Lansing Care And RehabLansing, KS 3 of 5McPherson Operator, LLCMcPherson, KS 3 of 5Neodesha Care And RehabNeodesha, KS 3 of 5Parkway Operator LLCEdwardsville, KS 3 of 5Pittsburg Care And RehabPittsburg, KS 3 of 5Rolling Hills Health And RehabWichita, KS 3 of 5Wilson Care And RehabWilson, KS 4 of 5Arma Operator, LLCArma, KS 4 of 5Onaga Operator, LLCOnaga, KS 4 of 5Oswego Operator, LLCOswego, KS 4 of 5Peabody Health And RehabPeabody, KS 4 of 5Pratt Health And RehabPratt, KS 4 of 5Smith Center Health And RehabSmith Center, KS 4 of 5Wakefield Care And RehabWakefield, KS 5 of 5Botkin Care And RehabWellington, KS 5 of 5Downs Care And RehabDowns, KS

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
KANSAS OPERATOR LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 02/25/2015
BARRES, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/26/2015
T AND C CAPITAL ASSETS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/26/2015
WINDWARD HEALTH PARTNERS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/26/2015
CRINO, BRYANIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/26/2015
FEUER, SCOTTIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/26/2015
LINDEMAN, STUARTIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICERNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/26/2015
PASSERO, JOSEPHIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/26/2015
YOAKUM, JAMIEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/24/2024
MISSION HEALTH COMMUNITIES, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 02/26/2015
BORZUMATO, ANDREWIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 02/26/2015

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

5 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.

$4.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+18.0%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$273K
Related-party expense8% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 67%Medicare 12%Other / private 20%

This home reported $273K 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

$250per resident / day
operating cost
$7,600per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$305per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Kansas
$8,669/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,064/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,975/mo
Assisted living

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 175357. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-26, 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.

What to do next