RIVERVIEW ESTATES
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Riverview Estates in Marquette, Kansas has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall performance. It ranks #278 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, placing it in the bottom half, and #7 out of 7 in McPherson County, meaning there are no better local options. The trends are worsening, with the number of issues doubling from 5 in 2023 to 12 in 2025. While staffing is a strength with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 40%, which is below the state average, the facility has concerning fines of $24,483, higher than 81% of Kansas facilities. Specific incidents include a resident with sepsis who did not receive timely care, and another resident who suffered a fall due to staff not following the care plan, indicating significant risks in resident safety. Overall, while the staffing is strong, the facility has serious deficiencies that families should carefully consider.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Kansas
- #278/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near Kansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $24,483 in fines. Higher than 71% of Kansas facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 54 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kansas. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 26 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 (40%)
8 points below Kansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Kansas average (2.9)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Kansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 27 residents, with three residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Based on r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
11 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 23 residents. The sample size included 12 residents, with 12 residents reviewed for neglect. Based ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 23 residents. The sample size included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview, the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 23 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on interviews and record review, the facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 23 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with two residents reviewed for discharge. Based on...
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 23 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility ...
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 23 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for urinary catheter (insertion of...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 23 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for hospice (a type of health care...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility had a census of 23 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to perform background checks as required for four employees. The employees were allow...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 23 residents. The sample includes 12 residents, with seven residents reviewed for immunizations, Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 23 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly date opened bags of food with the open ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 23 residents. The sample size included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to adhere to infection control for enhanced ba...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Res...
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 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for urinary tract infection (UTI-a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 31 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility kitchen staff failed to provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to employ a full time certified dietary manager for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
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 30 residents with three residents reviewed for falls. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow Resident (R) 1's care plan and provide her...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2021
9 deficiencies
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 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for pressure ulcers (PU) (injuries...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two reviewed for nutrition. Based on observatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review,...
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** - R23's Physician's Order, dated 09/07/21, recorded the following diagnoses of vascular dementia without behavior disturbance (p...
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 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Base...
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** - R23's Physician's Order, dated 09/07/21, recorded the following diagnoses of vascular dementia without behavior disturbance (p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to correctly prepare a pureed diet for two residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 31 residents. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to prepare, store, distribute, and serve food under ...
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?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 40% turnover. Below Kansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 26 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $24,483 in fines. Higher than 94% of Kansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (1/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Riverview Estates's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RIVERVIEW ESTATES an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Riverview Estates Staffed?
CMS rates RIVERVIEW ESTATES's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Kansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Riverview Estates?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at RIVERVIEW ESTATES during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 23 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 Riverview Estates?
RIVERVIEW ESTATES 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 36 certified beds and approximately 26 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MARQUETTE, Kansas.
How Does Riverview Estates Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, RIVERVIEW ESTATES's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (40%) 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 Riverview Estates?
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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Riverview Estates Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RIVERVIEW ESTATES has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Riverview Estates Stick Around?
RIVERVIEW ESTATES has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Riverview Estates Ever Fined?
RIVERVIEW ESTATES has been fined $24,483 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Kansas average of $33,324. 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 Riverview Estates on Any Federal Watch List?
RIVERVIEW ESTATES 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.