MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Meade District Hospital LTCU, operating as Lone Tree Retirement, has a Trust Grade of C+, which indicates it is slightly above average in terms of care quality. It ranks #78 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 2 in Meade County, meaning only one other facility in the area is rated higher. Unfortunately, the trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, receiving a 5-star rating with a 48% turnover rate, which is on par with the state average, suggesting staff consistency. While the facility has no fines on record, indicating good compliance, specific incidents have raised concerns, such as a failure to supervise a resident at risk of elopement and unsanitary food preparation conditions, both of which put residents at potential risk. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and compliance, families should be aware of the facility's recent trend of increasing issues and specific safety concerns.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Kansas
- #78/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kansas. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Kansas avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 33 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two reviewed for dignity. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0628
(Tag F0628)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 33 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one resident reviewed for discharge. Based on o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 33 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility reported a census of 33 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on interviews, observation and record review, the facility failed to utilize Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 33 residents, and one main kitchen. Based on observation, record review and interview the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 33 residents. Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain and/or dispose of kitchen garbage and refuse properly. This placed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 33 residents. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to designate a qualified Infection Preventionist (IP), who had completed specialized training i...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 33 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information to the Payroll-Based Journaling (PBJ) as ...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 32 residents, with three residents reviewed for risk of elopement (an incident in which a cognitively impaired resident with poor or impaired decision-making ability/...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility has a census of 27 with 12 residents included in the sample, two reviewed for respiratory care. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessar...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 27 with 12 residents included in the sample. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment by the failure to...
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 reported a census of 27 residents with one central kitchen. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store foods safely and ensure proper sanitization an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility census totaled 27 residents with all residents receiving meals from the one main kitchen. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain mechanical, electrical, and pa...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 27 residents. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information to the federal regulatory agency through P...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2021
4 deficiencies
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 reported a census of 33, with 12 residents in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the fa...
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 census totaled 33 residents, with 12 included in the sample. Based on interview and record review the facility fail...
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
The facility census totaled 33 residents, with 12 included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to revise care plans for Resident (R) 9 and R28 in incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 33 residents, with 12 in the sample, and four reviewed for oxygen/respiratory care. Based on o...
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.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
About This Facility
What is Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT 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 Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement Staffed?
CMS rates MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Kansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 15 with potential for harm, and 2 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 Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement?
MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 45 certified beds and approximately 35 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MEADE, Kansas.
How Does Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement?
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 Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT 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 Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement Stick Around?
MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT has a staff turnover rate of 48%, 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 Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement Ever Fined?
MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT 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 Meade District Hosp Ltcu Dba Lone Tree Retirement on Any Federal Watch List?
MEADE DISTRICT HOSP LTCU DBA LONE TREE RETIREMENT 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.