TALLGRASS CREEK, INC
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Tallgrass Creek, Inc has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families, though not the very best. Ranking #42 out of 295 facilities in Kansas places it in the top half statewide, and #5 out of 35 in Johnson County means there are only four local options that are better. However, the facility's trend is concerning as the number of issues has worsened significantly, increasing from 1 issue in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 40%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting good staff retention. On the downside, there have been some serious incidents, including a resident at risk for elopement who managed to exit the facility unsupervised, and issues with hazardous materials being accessible to residents, which raise safety concerns.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Kansas
- #42/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near Kansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $7,446 in fines. Higher than 81% of Kansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 72 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
-
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
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Kansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Kansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
May 2024
7 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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents with one resident reviewed for dignity. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to pr...
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 F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The facility had one main kitchen and one kitchenette area. The facility had two residents that required a pureed diet. Based on observation, record r...
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 F0807
(Tag F0807)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 28's therapeutic di...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 multiple residents
The facility had a census of 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents with two reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe en...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The facility had two medication rooms. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to the facility failed to ensure an acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The facility had one main kitchen and one kitchenette and dining area. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff stored,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control standards were...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 43 residents. The sample included two residents reviewed for elopement (when a cognitively impaired resident leaves the facility without the knowledge or supervisio...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
6 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 identified a census of 43 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to promote a dignified dining experience during meal service for Resident (R)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for activities of daily li...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 identified a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with four residents reviewed for accidents. B...
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 identified a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two reviewed for bowel and bladder incon...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0807
(Tag F0807)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for specialized diets. Bas...
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 identified a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control st...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2021
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 39 residents. The sample included 13 residents with five residents sampled for pneumococcal ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 39 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage in the designated resident refrigera...
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 identified a census of 39 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff practiced infection co...
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
- • 40% turnover. Below Kansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
About This Facility
What is Tallgrass Creek, Inc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns TALLGRASS CREEK, INC an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Tallgrass Creek, Inc Staffed?
CMS rates TALLGRASS CREEK, INC'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 Tallgrass Creek, Inc?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at TALLGRASS CREEK, INC during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 16 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 Tallgrass Creek, Inc?
TALLGRASS CREEK, INC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by ERICKSON SENIOR LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 44 certified beds and approximately 42 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in OVERLAND PARK, Kansas.
How Does Tallgrass Creek, Inc Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, TALLGRASS CREEK, INC's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Tallgrass Creek, 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?" "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 Tallgrass Creek, Inc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, TALLGRASS CREEK, INC 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 5-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 Tallgrass Creek, Inc Stick Around?
TALLGRASS CREEK, INC 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 Tallgrass Creek, Inc Ever Fined?
TALLGRASS CREEK, INC has been fined $7,446 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kansas average of $33,153. 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 Tallgrass Creek, Inc on Any Federal Watch List?
TALLGRASS CREEK, 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.