EASTRIDGE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Eastridge Nursing Home has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance and some concerns about resident care. It ranks #184 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, placing it in the bottom half statewide, and #4 out of 5 in Nemaha County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is currently worsening, with reported issues increasing from 5 in 2023 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, earning a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 37%, which is better than the state average. However, there are serious concerns, including incidents where residents were at risk of burns from unattended hot equipment and a resident suffered a fracture due to improper use of a lift. While there have been no fines reported, the lack of adequate Registered Nurse coverage at times raises questions about the overall quality of care.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Kansas
- #184/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 37% turnover. Near Kansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 73 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Kansas nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (37%)
11 points below Kansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Kansas average (2.9)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Kansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
6 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
The facility had a census of 17 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment free from accident hazards when the facility left the active...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 17 residents. The sample included eight residents, with one sampled resident reviewed for hospice. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 17 residents. The facility had one medication room and one medication cart. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility identified a census of 17 residents. The sample included eight residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility identified a census of 17 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to submit accurate staffing information to the federal regulatory agency through Payroll Bas...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
The facility identified a census of 17 residents. The sample included eight residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that daily posted nurse staffin...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 19 residents. The sample included nine residents. Based on observation, record review, and i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 19 residents. The sample included nine residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure pressure reducing measures were...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 19 residents. The sample included nine residents with two residents sampled for position, ra...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 19 residents. The sample include nine residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide consistent activities for the r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility had a census of 19 residents. The sample included nine residents with five residents reviewed for accidents and/or hazards. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 18 residents, with 8 residents included in the sample. Four residents were sampled for accidents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
- • 37% turnover. Below Kansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 12 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Eastridge's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns EASTRIDGE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Kansas, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Eastridge Staffed?
CMS rates EASTRIDGE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the Kansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Eastridge?
State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at EASTRIDGE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 9 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Eastridge?
EASTRIDGE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 28 certified beds and approximately 17 residents (about 61% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CENTRALIA, Kansas.
How Does Eastridge Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, EASTRIDGE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Eastridge?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Eastridge Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, EASTRIDGE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kansas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Eastridge Stick Around?
EASTRIDGE has a staff turnover rate of 37%, which is about average for Kansas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Eastridge Ever Fined?
EASTRIDGE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Eastridge on Any Federal Watch List?
EASTRIDGE is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.