SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #284 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, they are in the bottom half of all nursing homes in the state and last in Saline County. The facility is worsening, with the number of health and safety issues increasing from 9 in 2024 to 17 in 2025. Staffing is problematic, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a concerning turnover rate of 72%, well above the state average. Additionally, the center has incurred fines totaling $141,165, which is higher than 93% of Kansas facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. There are also critical concerns regarding resident care, including incidents where a resident was left without a call light within reach and not properly assisted after a fall, leading to unnecessary suffering and risk of further injury. Another incident involved neglecting a resident's basic hygiene needs, which could lead to significant health risks. While there are some average quality measures, these strengths do not outweigh the serious deficiencies reported. Families should carefully consider these issues when researching Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Kansas
- #284/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 72% turnover. Very high, 24 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $141,165 in fines. Lower than most Kansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 64 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Kansas average (2.9)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
26pts above Kansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
24 points above Kansas average of 48%
The Ugly 64 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
1 deficiency
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
The facility identified a census of 61 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare, store, and serve meals under sanitary conditions for the 61 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
14 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 had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with three reviewed for Medicare Liability Notices. Based on the record review and interview, the facility failed to provid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with four reviewed for hospitalization. Based on th...
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 had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise Resident (R) 48's care plan to include th...
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** The facility had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...
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 had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with four residents reviewed for urinary catheter (...
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 had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor Resident (R) 48's physician order for fl...
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 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with one reviewed for hospice services. Based on ob...
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 had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on the interview and record review, the facility failed to offer pneumococcal (type of bacterial infection) PCV20 imm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility had a census of 65 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - R3's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of major depressive disorder (major mood disorder that causes persis...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility had a census of 65 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store medications securely and dispose of expired medications timely. This deficie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
2 deficiencies
2 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
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 63 residents, with three residents reviewed for pain. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to obtain the as needed (PRN) pain med...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 63 residents, with three residents reviewed for pain. Based on record review, observation, a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
3 deficiencies
3 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 70 residents with three residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure R...
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
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 70 residents with three residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Based on re...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 70 residents with three residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
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 75 residents with three residents reviewed for falls and accidents. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
5 deficiencies
2 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 77 residents with three residents reviewed for neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1 remained fr...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 76 residents with three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 76 residents with three residents reviewed for infection control. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 2 ...
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 identified a census of 76 residents with three residents reviewed for infection control. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to utilize accepted infect...
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 77 residents with three residents reviewed for neglect. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and proc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
4 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 F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 78 residents. The sample included six 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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 78 residents. The sample included six residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide interventions to prevent skin breakdown...
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 F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 78 residents. The sample included six residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a dysphagia (swallowing difficulty) die...
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
The facility had a census of 78 residents. The sample included six residents. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to display accurate and up to date nursing personnel hours for sta...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
18 deficiencies
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 had a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents with six reviewed for falls. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide adequate supe...
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
- On 08/14/23 at 02:50 PM R48 was observed from the hallway outside of her bedroom. Her bedroom and bathroom doors were opened which created a large enough gap that anyone passing by could have saw he...
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 F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facilty idenitfied a census of 69. The sample inlcuded 18 residents. based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)48 received a pressure reducing d...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and int...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one resident reviewed for hospitalizatio...
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 identified a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one resident reviewed for hospitalizatio...
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
The facility identified a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents with five residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) cares. Based on observation, record review, and in...
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -The Medical Diagnosis section within R46's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke-s...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one reviewed for incontinence cares. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to implement...
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 F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents with two residents reviewed for dialysis (blood purifying treatment given when kidney function is not optimum). 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 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 69 residents. The sample included 18 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
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 19's therapeutic di...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 identified a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents with two residents reviewed for hospice servi...
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
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 69 residents. The sample include 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide activities for the residents duri...
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 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control standard...
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
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility identified a census of 69 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient weekend staffing. This...
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 69 residents with one kitchen. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain sanitary dietary standards related to food stora...
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 identified a census of 69 residents. The sample include 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide mail services on Saturdays.
Find...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
1 deficiency
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 identified a census of 72 residents with three residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. Based on record review...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
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
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 71 residents. The sample included eight residents with three residents reviewed for pressure...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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 68 residents with three residents reviewed for quality of care. Based on record review, obse...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
1 deficiency
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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 68 residents. The sample included three residents. Based on observation, record review, and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
12 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 had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents, with three reviewed for Beneficiary Notices. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide one of th...
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 facility had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents, with four reviewed for behaviors. Based on observat...
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 had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents, with one reviewed for skin conditions. Based on obs...
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** The facility had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents with seven residents reviewed for activities of dail...
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 had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents, with seven reviewed for accidents. Based on observa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents, with one resident reviewed for pain. Based on obser...
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 had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16, with two reviewed for dementia care. Based on observation, re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents with one reviewed for dental care. Based on observat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 55 residents. The sample included 16 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to correctly prepare a pureed diet for one resident,...
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: 4 life-threatening violation(s), 6 harm violation(s), $141,165 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 64 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $141,165 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 Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 72%, which is 26 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 78%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 64 deficiencies at SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 6 that caused actual resident harm, 52 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 Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center?
SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER 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 HMG HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 63 residents (about 70% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SALINA, Kansas.
How Does Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (72%) 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 Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center?
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 you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 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 Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 72%, the facility is 26 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 78%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $141,165 across 5 penalty actions. This is 4.1x the Kansas average of $34,491. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Smoky Hill Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
SMOKY HILL REHABILITATION CENTER 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.