LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Logan County Senior Living Inc in Oakley, Kansas has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the facility's care quality. It ranks #260 out of 295 in Kansas, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, although it is the only option within Logan County. The facility's trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 12 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. While staffing is a relative strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate below the state average at 44%, it has concerning aspects such as $98,346 in fines, which is higher than 97% of Kansas facilities, and less RN coverage than 76% of state homes. Specific incidents of concern include a failure to administer necessary antibiotic treatment to a resident and instances of verbal abuse by staff, highlighting serious deficiencies that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Kansas
- #260/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Kansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $98,346 in fines. Higher than 89% of Kansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 26 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
-
Staff turnover below average (44%)
4 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
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record
Feb 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
The facility identified a census of 27 residents, with three residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to prevent...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)5, R19, and R79 or their representative, t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
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 27 residents. The sample included 13, with two reviewed for dementia (progressive mental deteriorat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
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 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with five reviewed for accidents. Based on observat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Deficiency F0742
(Tag F0742)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents with nine reviewed for mood and behavior. Based on o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 13, with two reviewed for dementia (progressive mental deteriorat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
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 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Bas...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
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 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents with one reviewed for hospice (a type of health care...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate infection control measures for R...
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
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 27 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information through Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) as require...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the residents received their mail on Saturdays.
Findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 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 24 residents with three residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to prevent a fall out ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 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 23 residents with three residents reviewed for accidents. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow Resident (R) 1's care pl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 25 residents with three residents reviewed for quality of care. Based on record review, obse...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 24 residents with three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents remain...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 24 residents with three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure staff identified ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2022
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with one reviewed for side rails. Based on observat...
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 27 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** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Base...
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 had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for infection control. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2020
4 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 19 residents. The sample included eight residents with four reviewed for accidents. Based on observ...
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 19 residents. The sample included eight residents with four reviewed for accidents. Based on observ...
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 19 residents. The sample included eight residents with four residents reviewed for accidents. Based...
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 19 residents. The sample included eight residents with four residents reviewed for accidents. Based...
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
- • 44% turnover. Below Kansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 3 life-threatening violation(s), 4 harm violation(s), $98,346 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 26 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $98,346 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Kansas. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Logan County Senior Living Inc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC 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 Logan County Senior Living Inc Staffed?
CMS rates LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, 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 Logan County Senior Living Inc?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC during 2020 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 4 that caused actual resident harm, 18 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 Logan County Senior Living Inc?
LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC 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 30 certified beds and approximately 25 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in OAKLEY, Kansas.
How Does Logan County Senior Living Inc Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Logan County Senior Living Inc?
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 Logan County Senior Living Inc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC 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 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (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 Logan County Senior Living Inc Stick Around?
LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Logan County Senior Living Inc Ever Fined?
LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC has been fined $98,346 across 4 penalty actions. This is above the Kansas average of $34,062. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Logan County Senior Living Inc on Any Federal Watch List?
LOGAN COUNTY SENIOR LIVING INC 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.