Citations in Kansas
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Kansas.
Statistics for Kansas (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Kansas
Surveyors identified unsanitary food storage and preparation conditions, including food debris in a reach-in freezer, an unknown spilled liquid in a reach-in refrigerator, missing two-inch air gap on an ice machine drain, dirty carts used for clean dishes, and a steamtable shelf with built-up food debris. A dietary staff member acknowledged these areas needed cleaning, and it was determined the facility lacked a cleaning schedule or policy for kitchen cleanliness.
The facility failed to complete and analyze Care Area Assessments (CAAs) for multiple residents after Admission, Annual, and Significant Change MDS assessments triggered areas such as cognition, mood/behavior, functional status, urinary incontinence/indwelling catheter, nutrition, dental care, pressure ulcers, pain, falls, psychotropic drug use, psychosocial well-being, and visual function. Instead of documenting individualized analysis of underlying causes and contributing factors, an LPN reported she had stopped writing CAA notes and relied mainly on check-off worksheets and the fact that triggers appeared in the MDS CAA section. No facility policy on CAAs was provided to surveyors, and the CAAs consistently lacked required analytical documentation for residents with diverse and significant clinical needs.
A resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, and an indwelling urinary catheter was repeatedly observed sitting in common areas with his catheter drainage bag resting on his lower leg, visibly filled with dark amber urine and lacking a privacy cover, despite a care plan directing staff to cover the drainage bag. CNAs reported that the bag often slid down from the resident’s thigh, that they did not use catheter dignity bags on their hall, and that they simply moved the bag back up when it slid down. An administrative nurse stated she had not considered the use of dignity bags on the memory care unit, even though the facility’s resident rights policy affirms each resident’s right to a dignified existence, privacy, and confidentiality.
Two residents with documented cognitive ability to participate in care planning were not invited to any care plan meetings, and their EMRs lacked evidence of care plan conferences, invitations, or Interdisciplinary Care Conference assessments. Administrative staff stated that invitations should be mailed or hand-delivered and uploaded to the EMR, and that an Interdisciplinary Care Conference note should be completed, but none of this documentation existed for these residents, contrary to facility policy and federal requirements for resident and/or representative participation in care planning.
A resident with C-diff and CHF, newly admitted and with a baseline care plan that did not address call light use, was repeatedly found without access to a call light. Surveyors observed the resident yelling for help with her room door closed and later noted the call light on the floor under the bed and again on the floor while the resident sat in a recliner and stated she wanted to return to bed but could not do so independently. Staff reported using a binder clip to attach the call light to the resident’s clothing because the cord lacked a clip, acknowledged the resident sometimes threw the call light to the floor, and stated that call lights should be kept within residents’ reach. An administrative nurse confirmed the expectation that call lights be accessible at all times and was unsure about the use of a binder clip, and no facility policy on call lights was provided.
Surveyors found that a resident’s bathroom and handwashing area were not maintained in a safe, sanitary, and comfortable condition, including a loose baseboard with black substance behind it, a cracked toilet seat, and an empty, improperly mounted hand soap dispenser. Maintenance staff confirmed these conditions, noted that the soap dispenser was nonfunctional, and reported that although a QR code system existed for reporting maintenance issues, these problems had not been reported. Maintenance staff also stated there were no facility policies for maintenance repair in resident rooms and no policy provided for ensuring a safe, homelike environment.
Unsanitary Kitchen Conditions and Lack of Cleaning Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions when surveyors observed multiple cleanliness and equipment issues in the kitchen. During an initial kitchen tour on 04/27/26 at 08:57 AM, the three-door reach-in freezer was found with food debris on the bottom shelf, and the three-door reach-in refrigerator had an unknown spilled liquid on the bottom shelf. The drain to the ice machine did not have the required two-inch air gap. Two black two-tiered plastic carts used to store clean dishes had food debris on the bottom tier, and the bottom shelf of the steamtable, which was used to store plate covers, had a buildup of food debris. On 04/28/26 at 01:57 PM, a dietary staff member confirmed these areas required cleaning, and it was identified that the facility did not have a cleaning schedule or a policy regarding kitchen cleanliness. No specific residents, medical histories, or clinical conditions were mentioned in the report in relation to this deficiency.
Failure to Complete and Analyze Care Area Assessments for Multiple Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete comprehensive Care Area Assessments (CAAs) with analysis of underlying causes, contributing factors, and risk factors for multiple residents following MDS assessments. Record review showed that numerous residents had Admission, Annual, or Significant Change MDS assessments that triggered CAAs in areas such as mood/behavior, cognitive loss/dementia, functional abilities, communication, urinary incontinence/indwelling catheter, nutritional status, dental care, pressure ulcers, pain, falls, psychotropic drug use, psychosocial well-being, visual function, and psychosocial well-being. For each of these triggered areas, the corresponding CAAs lacked analysis of the findings. This pattern was identified for residents with a wide range of clinical issues, including dementia, incontinence, falls, pressure ulcers, nutritional concerns, psychotropic medication use, pain, and functional decline. During an interview, a licensed nurse reported that she had stopped writing CAA notes the previous year after being told to do so by someone she could not identify. She stated that she did not write anything on the triggered CAAs and that, at times, she would document risk concerns only on a main check-off worksheet, relying on the fact that the triggers were already reflected in the MDS CAA section. The facility did not provide a policy regarding CAAs when requested. These findings demonstrate that the facility did not ensure that comprehensive assessments were fully completed as required when residents were first admitted and periodically thereafter.
Failure to Maintain Dignity and Privacy for Resident with Indwelling Catheter
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s right to a dignified existence by not maintaining privacy for his urinary catheter drainage bag as directed in his care plan. The resident had diagnoses including bladder calculus and dementia, with a BIMS score of one indicating severe cognitive impairment, and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene with an indwelling urinary catheter and constant urinary incontinence. His care plan, revised 03/23/26, instructed staff to cover his drainage bag with a privacy cover. However, during observations on 04/27/26, the resident was seen sitting in his wheelchair at his room doorway and later in the dining room with his catheter drainage bag resting on his lower left leg, supported by his shoe, containing dark amber urine and visible to visitors and other residents, without a privacy cover. Staff interviews confirmed that the catheter drainage bag frequently slid from the resident’s left thigh down to his lower leg and that staff did not consistently reposition it or use dignity/privacy bags. One CNA stated he had never placed a dignity bag on the resident’s drainage bag, and another CNA reported that staff on their hall did not utilize catheter dignity bags, instead just moving the bag back up when it slid down. An administrative nurse acknowledged she had not considered staff use of dignity bags for urinary catheters on the memory care unit. The facility’s Resident Rights policy, approved 12/2024, stated that each resident has the right to a dignified existence including privacy and confidentiality, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Involve Cognitively Able Residents in Care Plan Meetings
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents were given the opportunity to participate in the development and implementation of their person-centered plans of care. For one resident with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition, the electronic medical record showed an admission MDS and a Significant Change MDS, but there was no documentation of any care plan meeting in the prior four months. This resident reported not being invited to any care plan meeting. For a second resident with a BIMS score of 14, indicating intact cognition, the electronic medical record contained an admission MDS and a Quarterly MDS, but there was no documentation of a care plan meeting in the prior two months. This resident also reported not being invited to any care plan meeting. Administrative staff reported that residents and/or family members were supposed to be mailed or hand-delivered invitations to attend care planning meetings and that a copy of the invitation should be uploaded into the EMR. They further stated that an Interdisciplinary Care Conference assessment should be completed in the EMR during the care plan meeting. However, the administrative nurse confirmed that there was no documentation of invitations, Interdisciplinary Care Conference assessments, or completed care plan meetings for the two residents. The facility’s care planning policy stated that social services should attend care plan meetings and that the team presents information to the resident and/or representative about progress toward care plan goals, and referenced federal law requiring resident and/or representative participation in care plan meetings to the extent possible, but this process was not carried out or documented for the two residents identified.
Failure to Keep Call Light Within Reach for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s call light was within reach and to reasonably accommodate the resident’s needs and preferences. The resident had documented diagnoses of C-diff and CHF, and her baseline care plan dated 04/23/26 directed staff to evaluate for changes in level of consciousness but did not include any direction regarding call light use or accessibility. On 04/28/26 at 08:06 AM, surveyors observed the resident’s room door closed while she yelled loudly for help several times. When a licensed nurse entered the room, the resident was lying on her left side in bed, stated she wanted to get up, and reported she could not find her call light. The call light was observed on the floor under her bed. Later that morning, a CNA attached the call light to the resident’s shirt using a black and silver binder clip because the call light cord did not have its own clip. On 04/29/26 at 12:15 PM, the resident was seated in a recliner with the call light again lying on the floor out of her reach; she reported she wanted to go to bed and could not get herself back into bed. Staff interviews revealed that the CNA used the binder clip to keep the call light attached to the resident, and the licensed nurse stated staff should make sure the call light is clipped to the resident’s clothes and reported that the resident would throw her call light on the floor. An administrative nurse stated she expected staff to ensure all residents always have their call lights in reach and was unsure about using a binder clip to hold a call light in place. The facility did not provide a policy regarding call lights.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Sanitary Resident Bathroom Environment
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment in Resident 87’s bathroom and handwashing area. During an environmental tour with Maintenance Staff UU, surveyors observed an approximately four-foot section of loose baseboard to the left of and behind the toilet, with a black substance present on the wall and floor behind the loose baseboard. They also noted an approximately three-inch crack in the toilet seat and an empty hand soap dispenser hanging above the handwashing sink, mounted with exposed lag bolt fasteners. Maintenance Staff UU confirmed these conditions, acknowledged that the soap dispenser did not work, and stated that the toilet seat should be replaced, the bathroom baseboard removed, the black substance tested for mold, and the sheetrock removed and replaced. Further interview with Maintenance Staff UU revealed that the facility had implemented a QR code system for staff and visitors to report maintenance items, but the issues in this resident’s bathroom had not been reported through that system. He also reported that there had been a leak behind the handwashing sink that had flowed into the bathroom area, leading to the sink’s replacement, but he had received no report of the specific deficiencies observed in the bathroom. Additionally, Maintenance Staff UU stated that the facility did not have policies for maintenance repair in residents’ rooms, and the facility did not provide a policy for ensuring a safe, homelike environment.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in Kansas — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Kansas
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
