ELMHAVEN EAST
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Elmhaven East in Parsons, Kansas has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about care quality. Ranking #246 out of 295 in the state means they are in the bottom half of Kansas facilities, and #4 out of 4 in Labette County shows that only lower options are available locally. The trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 11 in 2023 to 12 by 2025. While staffing has a good rating of 4/5 stars with more RN coverage than 96% of facilities, the turnover rate is concerning at 66%, which is significantly higher than the state average. The facility has accumulated $53,504 in fines, indicating compliance problems that are higher than 89% of Kansas facilities. Specific incidents of concern include a failure to respond to troubling behavior from a licensed nurse, leaving residents potentially unsafe, and neglect in monitoring a resident's critical health changes, such as not notifying a physician about significant drops in urinary output and difficulty breathing, which could have serious consequences. Overall, Elmhaven East shows both staffing strengths but serious care deficiencies that families should carefully consider.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Kansas
- #246/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 66% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $53,504 in fines. Higher than 54% of Kansas facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 76 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
- 38 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average 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
Below Kansas average (2.9)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
20pts above Kansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
18 points above Kansas average of 48%
The Ugly 38 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
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
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 30 residents with 14 residents sampled, including three residents reviewed for dignity. Based ...
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 F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 30 residents with 14 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to verify Resident (R) 10's advanced directives (a leg...
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 30 residents, with 14 residents sampled, including five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on record review, interview, and observation, the faci...
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
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 30 residents with 14 residents selected for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete the Minimum Data Set for Resid...
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 F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 30 residents. The sample included 14 residents with one sampled for catheter (a flexible tube inserted through a narrow opening into a body cavity, particularly the...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 30 residents with 14 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for activities of dai...
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 F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 30 residents with 14 residents sampled, including four residents reviewed for positioning and ...
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
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 30 residents with 14 residents selected for review which included five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record rev...
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 reported a census of 30 residents. The sample included 14 residents. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observation, the facility staff failed to implement adequate and acceptable i...
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
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 14 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for at least eight consecutive hours as r...
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
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Findings included:
- Review of the facility's Daily Staffing Sheets, for the past 30 days, revealed the actual hours worked had not been completed on the daily staffing sheets.
On 04/23/25 at 08:17 AM...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 35 residents with 14 residents selected for review. Based on interview and record review, the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 35 residents with 14 residents selected for review. Based on observation, interview and record...
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 reported a census of 35 residents with 14 residents selected for review, which included three residents reviewed fo...
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 reported a census of 35 residents with 14 residents selected for review, that included three residents reviewed for...
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 reported a census of 35 residents with six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, in...
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 reported a census of 35 residents with 14 residents selected for review, that included six residents reviewed for u...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 35 residents with 14 residents selected for review, that included six residents for review of unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record rev...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 35 residents with 14 residents sampled, that included two residents reviewed for bowel and bla...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 07/03/23, documented Resident (R)20 had a diagnosis of paraplegia (paralysis characteri...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 35 residents with 14 residents sampled, that included six residents reviewed for range of moti...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 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 most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
5 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 36 residents, with 10 residents selected for review, including two residents reviewed for negl...
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
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 36 residents, with 10 residents selected for review. Based on observation, interview, and reco...
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 26 residents with 10 selected for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review, ...
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
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 36 residents with 10 selected for review, including five residents reviewed for respiratory se...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during dressing changes of pressure ulcers (localized in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2021
10 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 30 residents, with 14 residents sampled including three residents reviewed for pain. Based on ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 30 residents with 14 residents sampled. Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (R)7 had hot, running water in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 11/20/21, documented Resident (R)21 had diagnoses of neuropathy (disease or dysfunction...
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** - Review of Resident (R) 8's Physician Order Sheet, dated 5/21/2021, revealed diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia (a chron...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident (R) 8's Physician Order Sheet, dated 05/21/2021, revealed diagnoses that included paranoid schizophrenia (a...
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** - Review of Resident (R) 8's Physician Order Sheet, dated 5/21/2021 revealed diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia (a chroni...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 reported a census of 30 residents with 14 selected for review and included one resident reviewed for dementia care....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide direct care staff annual evaluations for two of the five staff reviewed to determin...
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 reported a census of 30 residents. The facility identified two residents quarantined on isolation precautions for new admission status. Based on observation, interview and record review, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to display accurate, publicly assessable, and identifiable staffing information, ...
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: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $53,504 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 38 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $53,504 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 Elmhaven East's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ELMHAVEN EAST 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 Elmhaven East Staffed?
CMS rates ELMHAVEN EAST's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 66%, which is 20 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 Elmhaven East?
State health inspectors documented 38 deficiencies at ELMHAVEN EAST during 2021 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 32 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 Elmhaven East?
ELMHAVEN EAST 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 29 residents (about 64% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PARSONS, Kansas.
How Does Elmhaven East Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, ELMHAVEN EAST's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (66%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Elmhaven East?
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 Elmhaven East Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ELMHAVEN EAST has documented safety concerns. 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 Elmhaven East Stick Around?
Staff turnover at ELMHAVEN EAST is high. At 66%, the facility is 20 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 Elmhaven East Ever Fined?
ELMHAVEN EAST has been fined $53,504 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Kansas average of $33,614. 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 Elmhaven East on Any Federal Watch List?
ELMHAVEN EAST 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.