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

Larksfield Place

2828 N. Governeour, Wichita, KS 67226 · Non profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (316) 636-1111 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (316) 636-1111 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 13 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 (4/5) — 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 (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% 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 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
3161 N. Rock Road Suite A
Pharmacy
3030 N Rock Rd · (316) 636-5384 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
3030 N Rock Rd · (316) 636-4482 · Call to confirm hours
Park
(316) 683-5499 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

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 increased10.6%17.9%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.3%4.9%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.5%1.6%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.0%2.9%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.4%6.5%6.5%typical
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 injury1.5%4.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened8.7%16.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication6.8%23.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.4%95.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.3%4.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control27.7%22.6%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table4.0%18.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.3%1.9%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.2%73.8%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.2%22.4%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.1%11.5%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.641.801.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.062.131.80better

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.

60.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 401 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

60.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
57.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.57U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.26hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.25hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 57.8% 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 213 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 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF60.1%CMS range 55.1–64.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.9%CMS range 6.7–11.410.7%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 discharge57.8%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 discharge48.8%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 discharge53.0%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 identified98.8%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 setting99.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final 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 worsened1.9%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 hospitalization7.0%CMS range 4.2–10.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.801.02Oct 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

0.61
RN hours/ resident / day
1.18
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.76
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.55
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.58
RN hoursweekends
33.9%
Total nursing turnover
21.4%
RN turnover

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 4.55 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.76 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.72 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.61 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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

7
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-10-09)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2022-12-21)

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.

13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-10-09 · 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 74 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions, to the residents of the facility appropriately to prevent the potential for food borne bacteria, by failing to ensure the ice machine had an appropriate drainage air gap from the tubing to the floor drain, as required. Findings included: - During an initial tour of the kitchen on 10/07/24 at 10:35 AM, revealed the facility ice machine, used to supply ice to residents of the facility, did not have appropriate drainage. The draining tube from the ice machine fed directly into the floor drain, which contained small pieces of trash and debris, and lacked an air gap, as required. On 10/07/24 at 10:44 AM, Dietary Staff BB stated the draining tube from the ice machine should go into the floor drain. The facility policy for Ice Machine Safety, undated, included: The ice machine will be maintained and cleaned by the Environmental Service Staff. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine had an appropriate drainage air…

    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 · D2024-10-09 · 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 74 residents with 20 residents sampled for review, including one resident reviewed for hospitalization. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one Resident (R)70, regarding discharge to an acute hospital. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)70's electronic medical record (EMR) included a diagnosis of type II diabetes mellitus (DM-when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin). The Modification of admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE], from an acute hospital. She had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The resident's overall goal was to discharge to the community. The Return to Community Referral Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 06/23/24, did not trigger. The Discharge MDS, dated 07/09/24, documented the resident…

    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 · D2024-10-09 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility identified a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for positioning. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper wheelchair positioning for one Resident (R)5. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)5's electronic medical record (EMR) included a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of one, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She was dependent on staff for mobility in her wheelchair and all transfers. The Functional Abilities Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/03/23, did not trigger. The Quarterly MDS, dated 07/29/24, documented the staff assessment for cognition revealed severe impairment. She was dependent on staff for mobility in her wheelchair and transfers. The care plan for Activities of Daily Living…

    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 before2024-10-09 · 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 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, including nine residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (R)3's toilet safety rail was secure and R 29, related to failure to ensure the resident was safe in the use of his lift chair. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)3's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She has no impairment in functional range of motion (ROM) and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. The Urinary Incontinence and Indwelling Catheter Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 07/13/24, documented the resident was dependent on staff for toileting cares. The Quarterly 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 · D2024-10-09 · 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 74 residents with 20 residents selected for review, which included two residents reviewed for urinary catheters (a flexible tube inserted through the urethra [the external opening of the urinary tract] and into the bladder). Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed ensure consistent monitoring of one Resident (R)58's penile erosion (a split in the urethra) caused by pressure of a urinary catheter. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)58's medical record revealed diagnoses that included urinary retention (inability to empty urine from the bladder), renal failure, history of repair of femur (long bone in the upper leg), and depression (abnormal emotional state characterized by exaggerated feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and emptiness). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated normal cognitive function. The resident had impairment on…

    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 · D2024-10-09 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents selected for review, which included six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed physician orders for medication for one Resident (R)52 who received a lower dose a chemotherapy (medication used to treat cancer) than ordered by the physician. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)52's electronic medical record revealed diagnoses that included malignant (cancerous) neoplasm (tumor) of the brain, and post operative repair of femur (bone in upper part of the leg) fracture. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated normal cognitive function. The ADL (Activity of Daily Living) Functional/Rehabilitation Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/30/24, assessed the resident required skilled therapies after a left hip fracture and neoplasm of 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-09 · 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 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, including five residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter (a thin, hollow tube that is inserted into the bladder through the urethra to drain and collect urine). Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate catheter care for two Residents (R)47, and R58 with indwelling urinary catheters, in a clean and sanitary manner. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)47's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (the muscles that control the flow of urine out of the body do not relax and prevent the bladder from fully emptying). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of one, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He had an indwelling urinary catheter (a thin, hollow tube that is inserted into the bladder through the urethra to drain and collect…

    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 before2022-12-21 · 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 had a census of 59 residents. The facility had a large main kitchen and a satellite kitchen for the long term/skilled branch of the facility. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the light fixtures above the food preparation areas in the main facility kitchen were cleaned and the storage shelving without rust. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for food borne illness. Findings included: - On 12/15/22 at 11:00 AM, observation in the main kitchen revealed 19 overhead lights and 10 of the lights had lint on the surface and some small objects inside the cover. On 12/15/22 at 11:20 AM, observation in the main kitchen revealed metal shelving holding steam table pans had a small amount of rust at the edges of three of six of the shelves. The pan were turned upside down directly on the shelves. On 12/15/22 at 11:25 AM, Dietary Staff (DS) BB verified the findings and stated maintenance was responsible for the care and cleaning of the light fixtures and had last checked them in October of this year. The facility's…

    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 · D2022-12-21 · tag F0582 — isolated
    Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    The facility had a census of 59 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide two sampled residents, Resident (R)7 and R37 (or their representative) the completed Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notices (ABN) form 10055, (CMS) Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services. This placed the residents at risk for uniformed decisions regarding skilled services. Findings included: - The Medicare ABN form 10055 informed the beneficiary that Medicare may not pay for future skilled therapy services. The form included an option for the beneficiary to receive specific services listed, and bill Medicare for an official decision on payment. The form stated 1) I understand if Medicare does not pay, I will be responsible for payment, but can make an appeal to Medicare, (2) receive therapy listed, but do not bill Medicare, I am responsible for payment for services, (3) I do not want the listed services. Form 10055 was to include the monetary amount it would cost the resident to continue to receive therapy at 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2021-05-05 · 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 65 residents, with one main kitchen. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to store foods in a safe and sanitary manner by the failure of staff to date and reseal opened food items, and failure to discard expired food items. Findings included: - On 04/28/21 at 08:18 AM during initial tour of the main kitchen the following are observed: In the dry storeroom there were two bags of spaghetti noodles, opened, with no open date and one bag of chicken fry mix dated but not resealed closed. In the freezer, noted one bag of chicken breasts with ten pieces inside, one bag of fish fillets with 12 pieces, one bag of French fries, and one bag of potato cakes-- all opened and were not resealed and not dated. In the refrigerator, noted one 30 ounce (oz) container of roasted red pepper pesto, five 30 oz. containers of southwest chipotle pesto, all expired on 12/07/20; one five pound tub of whipped whole milk ricotta with a best by 04/28/21 date (Dietary Staff B stated it would not be used today), one 12 oz tub of hollandaise sauce with a best by…

    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 · E2021-05-05 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility census was 65 with 16 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to verify Resident (R) 10, R157, R48, and R155's Advance Directives (a legal document in which a person specified what actions should be taken for their health), and the facility provided conflicting information regarding the residents code status (decision whether or not to withhold medical intervention in the event the resident's heart stops) to the staff responsible for R10, R157, R48 and R155's care. Findings included: - Review of the [DATE] Care Plan documented R10 had a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR; or no code, a written legal order to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), in respect of the wishes of a person in case their heart stopped or they stopped breathing) order in chart and staff were to honor R10's decision and would not transfer R10 to the hospital due to the DNR. Review on [DATE] of the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Physician Orders documented no DNR order. Review 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2021-05-05 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    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 65 residents with 16 sampled including three for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide ADL assistance to include bathing services to maintain good grooming for Resident (R) 155, who required extensive assistance of two staff with bathing. Findings Included: - Review of R155's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented the following diagnoses dated 04/20/21: macular degeneration (progressive deterioration of the retina), osteoarthritis (degenerative changes to one or many joints characterized by swelling and pain), and fractures of the right tibia (bone of the lower leg) and fibula (one of the two bones of the lower leg). Review of R155's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15, indicating intact cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff with all ADLs, except eating which required supervision of one staff. 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 · Dcited before2021-05-05 · 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

    The facility reported a census of 65 residents, with 16 sampled and four for falls. Based on interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to adequately ensure R38's fall interventions were in place to prevent future falls and failed to implement new interventions related to two falls with noted lack of appropriate footwear on R38. Findings included: - Review of R38's pertinent diagnoses from 10/07/20 Physician's Order Electronic Medical Records (EMR) documented: overactive bladder, cognitive impairment (trouble remembering, learning new things, concentrating, or making decisions that affect their everyday life), abnormalities of gait and mobility (difficulties in walking), repeated falls, and pain. Review of the 10/14/20 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The resident required extensive one-person assistance for all activities of daily living (ADL) but could eat with limited assistance. R38 was occasionally incontinent of urine and not on a toileting program. 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

“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.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
NANNY, LARRYIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 10/01/2021
ADAMEK, KENNETHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
BENSON, STEPHENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/23/2011
BRAUN, SHANNONIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
CASADO, JILLIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 08/01/2020
DIETZ, CONNIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 08/01/2020
DILLARD, STEPHENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/01/2016
GILKEY, VIRDENAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/19/2021
GUSTAVSON, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
HATTEN, ERIKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 08/01/2020
HERRIN, MARYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/23/2011
MEDVENE, LOUISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
O'SULLIVAN, PATRICIAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2016
PEEL, TERRELLIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
SANTOS, JOAQUINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/01/2020
SHABAN, ETAFIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/19/2021
UTASH, SHEREEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2022
HAMBLEY, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2020
NIKKEL, TIMOTHYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/23/2009
SHAW, DENAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/08/2021
LARKSFIELD PLACE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/21/2009

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner 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.

$24.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-11.0%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 15%Medicare 19%Other / private 66%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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

$1,019per resident / day
operating cost
$30,979per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$918per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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 175181. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-09, 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