CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Citizens Medical Center LTCU has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among similar facilities. It ranks #56 out of 295 in Kansas, placing it in the top half, and #1 out of 2 in Thomas County, indicating it is the better option available locally. Unfortunately, the facility is trending worse, with issues increasing from 5 in 2022 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 60%, higher than the state average, suggesting potential instability among caregivers. The facility has received $17,124 in fines, which is average, yet there were critical incidents, including a resident not receiving necessary oxygen during a bath and another resident experiencing significant weight loss without proper dietary intervention. While the center has good RN coverage, it still has notable weaknesses that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Kansas
- #56/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $17,124 in fines. Higher than 85% of Kansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 68 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
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
13pts above Kansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
12 points above Kansas average of 48%
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility has a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for skin conditions, not pressu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one resident reviewed for discharge. Based on r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for skin conditions, not pressu...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two residents sampled for pressure ulcers (loca...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 44 residents with three residents reviewed for neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1 who had a h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
5 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with three reviewed for nutrition. Based on observa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with two reviewed for urinary catheters (tube inser...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with two reviewed for urinary catheters (tube inser...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for Beneficiary Notices. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide two of th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Bas...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Bas...
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?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $17,124 in fines. Above average for Kansas. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade C (51/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Citizens Medical Center Ltcu's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Kansas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Staffed?
CMS rates CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Citizens Medical Center Ltcu?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 15 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Citizens Medical Center Ltcu?
CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU 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 60 certified beds and approximately 43 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COLBY, Kansas.
How Does Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Citizens Medical Center Ltcu?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Stick Around?
Staff turnover at CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Ever Fined?
CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU has been fined $17,124 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kansas average of $33,250. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Citizens Medical Center Ltcu on Any Federal Watch List?
CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU 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.