CLARIDGE COURT
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Claridge Court in Prairie Village, Kansas has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not excellent. It ranks #57 out of 295 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #8 out of 35 in Johnson County, suggesting that only a few local options are better. The facility's performance is stable, with 7 issues reported both in 2022 and 2024. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5, which is good, but the turnover rate is average at 49%. However, the facility has faced some concerns, such as a serious incident where a resident suffered a broken wrist due to inadequate care related to dementia. Additionally, there were issues with staff performance evaluations not being completed and unsafe food storage practices that could risk food-borne illness. Despite these weaknesses, Claridge Court does provide more RN coverage than 80% of Kansas facilities, which is a positive aspect for resident care.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Kansas
- #57/295
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $18,028 in fines. Lower than most Kansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- 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
- 19 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
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Kansas avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Feb 2024
7 deficiencies
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 identified a census of 37. The sample included 12 residents with 12 reviewed for care plan revisions. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to revise Re...
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
The facility identified a census of 37 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two reviewed for pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prom...
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
The facility had a census of 104 residents. The sample included 23 residents with four residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensu...
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
The facility identified a census of 37 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the fa...
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
The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 12 residents of which five were reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 12 residents and five Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) reviewed for performance evaluations and required in-service training. Based on record...
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 identified a census of 37 residents. The facility had one kitchen and one kitchenette. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that food items w...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
7 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 44 residents. The sample included 15 residents with two residents reviewed for dementia care...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 44 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one resident reviewed for death. Based o...
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** The facility identified a census of 44 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one resident reviewed for hospice and en...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0675
(Tag F0675)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 44 residents. The sample included 15 residents with 15 reviewed for quality of life. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensur...
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 44 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one resident reviewed for bowel and blad...
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
The facility reported a census of 44 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one reviewed for nutrition and hydration . Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility faile...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 44 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review and inte...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2021
5 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 identified a census of 40 residents. The sample included 14 residents. Based on observations, interviews, and recor...
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 40 residents. The sample included 14 residents, with one resident reviewed for urinary tract...
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 identified a census of 40 residents. The sample included 14 residents. Based on observations, interviews, and recor...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 40. The sample included 14 residents. Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews,...
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 identified a census of 40 residents. Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to post and provide daily nursing staff numbers and hours and failed to mai...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $18,028 in fines. Above average for Kansas. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Claridge Court's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CLARIDGE COURT 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 Claridge Court Staffed?
CMS rates CLARIDGE COURT's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Kansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Claridge Court?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at CLARIDGE COURT during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 17 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Claridge Court?
CLARIDGE COURT is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by LIFESPACE COMMUNITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 45 certified beds and approximately 42 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PRAIRIE VILLAGE, Kansas.
How Does Claridge Court Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, CLARIDGE COURT's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Claridge Court?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Claridge Court Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CLARIDGE COURT has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Kansas. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Claridge Court Stick Around?
CLARIDGE COURT has a staff turnover rate of 49%, 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 Claridge Court Ever Fined?
CLARIDGE COURT has been fined $18,028 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kansas average of $33,259. 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 Claridge Court on Any Federal Watch List?
CLARIDGE COURT 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.