SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB

117 W 1ST STREET #369, SMITH CENTER, KS 66967 (785) 282-6696
For profit - Corporation 45 Beds MISSION HEALTH COMMUNITIES Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
54/100
#156 of 295 in KS
Last Inspection: April 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Smith Center Health and Rehab has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and in the middle of the pack compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #156 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, placing it in the bottom half, and is the second option in Smith County, indicating limited local choices. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, rated at 4 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 27%, significantly lower than the state average, which suggests staff are stable and familiar with residents. However, the facility has incurred fines totaling $16,153, which is concerning as it indicates potential compliance problems. Additionally, more registered nurse coverage than 83% of Kansas facilities is a positive aspect, ensuring better oversight of resident care. Specific incidents include a resident suffering a fractured neck due to improper use of a lift during transfer and the lack of a full-time Certified Dietary Manager, which raises concerns about nutritional care. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and RN coverage, the increase in reported issues and critical incidents highlights the need for careful consideration.

Trust Score
C
54/100
In Kansas
#156/295
Bottom 48%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below Kansas's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$16,153 in fines. Lower than most Kansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kansas. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Low Staff Turnover (27%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (27%)

    21 points below Kansas average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Kansas average (2.9)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Federal Fines: $16,153

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: MISSION HEALTH COMMUNITIES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Apr 2025 7 deficiencies
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 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with three residents reviewed for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Beneficiary Liability notices. Based ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with three residents reviewed for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Beneficiary Liability notices. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the correct CMS Form 10055, Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN), to the resident or their representative for Residents (R)15, R21, and R140. This placed the residents at risk for uninformed decisions regarding skilled services. Findings included: - The Medicare ABN form informed the beneficiaries Medicare may not pay for future skilled therapy and did not provide an estimated cost to continue their services. The form included options for the beneficiary to (1) receive specified services listed, and bill Medicare for an official decision on payment. I understand if Medicare does not pay, I will be responsible for payment, but can appeal to Medicare. (2) receive therapy listed, but do not bill Medicare, I am responsible for payment for payment of services. (3) I do not want the listed services. The facility's Medicare ABN form staff provided to R15 (or their representative) was CMS-R-131 when the resident's skilled services ended on 02/13/25. The facility's Medicare ABN form staff provided to R21 (or their representative) was form CMS-R-131 when the resident's skilled services ended on 10/14/24. The facility's Medicare ABN form staff provided to R140 (or their representative) was form CMS-R-131 when the resident's skilled services ended on 01/08/25. On 04/15/25 at 02:02 PM, Administrative Nurse F stated she did not realize she had provided the families with the incorrect CMS (ABN) form. The facility's Beneficiary Notices Policy, revised 08/24, documented for part A items and services; the facility should use the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) form CMS 10055.
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 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the State Long-term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) of Resident (R)18's discharge to the hospital. This placed R18 at risk for impaired rights. Findings included: - R18's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed diagnoses of dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion) with behavioral disturbance, delusional disorder (untrue persistent belief or perception held by a person although evidence shows it was untrue), and anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear). R18's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], recorded R18 had severe cognitive impairment (problems with thinking, learning, remembering, and using judgment). The MDS recorded she required extensive staff assistance with transfers and activities of daily living (ADL). The MDS documented the resident ambulated with a walker and wheelchair and received antianxiety (a class of medications that calm and relax people), antidepressant (a class of medications used to treat mood disorders), and antipsychotic (a class of medications used to treat major mental conditions that cause a break from reality) medications. The Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 07/08/24, recorded R18 required total assistance with ADLs and mobility, and often refused to stand with assistance. The CAA documented the resident was at risk for falls due to weakness and poor safety awareness. The CAA documented the resident had delusions and behaviors that included refusal of care. R18's Care Plan, dated 03/04/25, recorded R18 required extensive staff assistance with most ADL care. R18's plan of care documented R18 had a diagnosis of impaired cognitive function due to dementia and delirium and directed staff to anticipate and meet the resident's needs be sure the call light was within reach and staff would encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The care plan documented staff would encourage the resident to use appropriate footwear when ambulating had a personal safety alarm on and was functioning properly after providing care for the resident. On 12/07/24 at 03:45 PM the Nurses Notes documented staff heard a walker fall over and went to the dining room and found the resident lying under the table, on her stomach. The walker was noted to be tipped over several feet away from R18. The resident was alert and denied hitting her head. The nurse was notified and assessed R18 and noted her left leg was bent and unable to extend without severe pain in the left hip. The staff applied a blanket to keep R18 warm and notified emergency medical services, the physician, and the resident's family. At 03:55 PM the ambulance arrived and transported R18 to the hospital at 04:08 PM. On 12/07/24 at 06:10 PM the Nurses Notes documented R18 transferred to an out-of-town hospital after she was diagnosed with a fractured left hip. On 12/12/24 at 10:57 AM the Nurse's Notes documented R18 returned to the facility per facility staff. The resident entered the facility in a wheelchair and two staff assistance. Observation revealed the resident was alert and cooperative with assessment and care. The notes documented staff placed a chair alarm in the chair due to fall risk. R18's clinical record lacked documentation/evidence the staff notified the LTCO of R18's discharge from the facility. On 04/16/25 at 12:00 PM, Social Service X stated she just started the position in December 2024 and was not aware she needed to send the Ombudsman notification of residents who were discharged to the hospital, as she had just sent the Ombudsman notification of residents who discharged home. Social Service X verified she will now send the Ombudsman a list of the residents discharged to the hospital. On 04/16/25 at 01:00 PM, Administrative Staff A stated they did not have any notification to the Ombudsman regarding R18's discharge. The facility's Admission, Transfer, and Discharge, policy, dated April 2025, documented the community has established transfer and discharge criteria based upon applicable federal requirements. The community would provide a resident and/or the resident's representative within 30 days, a written notice of an impending transfer or discharge when specific criteria have not been reached. Transfer refers to the movement of a resident from a bed in one certified facility to a bed in another certified facility when the resident expects to return to the original facility. The policy documented the transfer or discharge information would be documented in the resident's chart, including: a. The verbal and/or written notices supplied: b. The discharge care plan. c. Documented discussions with the resident and if appropriate their representative. d. Recommended details. i. Discharge planning, and if necessary ii. Arrangements for post-discharge care. e. Send a copy to the State Long Term Care Ombudsman, note in the record.
CONCERN (D)

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 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to label Resident (R)6 and R23s' insulin (a hormone that lowers the level of glucose in the blood) flex pens with a started/opened date or a use by date. This deficient practice placed the affected residents at risk for ineffective medications. Findings included: - On [DATE] at 08:35 AM, observation of the facility's South Hall medication cart revealed the following: R6's Tresiba (long-acting insulin) flex pen was not labeled with an open or expired date. R23's Tresiba flex pen was not labeled with an open or expired date. On [DATE] at 08:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the nurses should label and date the insulin flex pens with the date opened. Medlineplus.gov directs open, unrefrigerated Tresiba can be used within 56 days; after that time, they must be discarded. The facility's Storage of Medication policy, dated [DATE], documented the facility would store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. The facility shall not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals. All such drugs shall be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed per state regulation. Drug containers that have missing, incomplete, improper, or incorrect labels shall be returned to the pharmacy for proper labeling before storing.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with five residents reviewed for immunizations, Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with five residents reviewed for immunizations, Resident (R) 4, R6, R11, R18, and R25, to include pneumococcal (a disease that refers to a range of illnesses that affect various parts of the body and are caused by infection) vaccinations. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to offer, or obtain an informed declination or a physician-documented contraindication for the pneumococcal PCV20 vaccination per the latest guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This placed the residents at risk for pneumococcal infection and related complications. Findings included: - Review of R4, R6, R11, R18, and R25 clinical medical records lacked evidence the facility or the resident representative received or signed a consent to receive or informed declination for the pneumococcal vaccine PCV20. Review of R4's electronic health record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R6 had not been offered or received a pneumococcal PCV20 vaccine since admission. Review of R6's electronic health record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R6 had not been offered or received a pneumococcal PCV20 vaccine since admission. Review of R11's electronic health record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R11 had not been offered or received a pneumococcal PVC20 vaccine since admission. Review of R18's electronic health record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R18 had not been offered or received a pneumococcal PCV20 vaccine since admission. Review of R25's electronic health record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R25 had not been offered or received a pneumococcal PCV20 vaccine since admission. On 04/15/25 at 11:20 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated residents are offered the pneumonia vaccines on admission and as indicated. Administrative Nurse E said the facility would sign a consent or declination for receiving the vaccine. Administrative Nurse E verified that every resident in the building had not been reviewed to determine if they were eligible to receive the PVC20 vaccine or not. Administrative Nurse E verified they did not have a definitive system in place to determine who was eligible, if they were eligible had been offered or declined the vaccinations, and if it was something they had recently been working on. On 04/15/25 at 11:00 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the facility lacked a system in place to identify which residents were eligible for which pneumococcal vaccination. Administrative Nurse D stated they did not have a system in place to identify if the resident was eligible for the PCV20 pneumococcal vaccine. The facility's Pneumococcal Vaccine policy dated February 2025 documented all residents were offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in the prevention of pneumococcal infections. Prior to or upon admission, residents are assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, are offered the vaccine series unless medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated. Assessment of pneumococcal vaccination status were conducted within five working days of the resident's admission if not conducted prior to admission. Before receiving a pneumococcal vaccine, the resident or legal representative receives information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine. Pneumococcal vaccines are administered to residents per the facilities physician approved pneumococcal vaccination protocol. Residents/representatives have the right to refuse vaccinations. If refused, appropriate information is documented in the resident per physician-approved pneumococcal vaccination protocol. Administration of the pneumococcal vaccines were made in accordance with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations at the time of the vaccination.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide the services of a full-time Certified Di...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide the services of a full-time Certified Dietary Manager for the 37 residents who resided in the facility and received their meals from the kitchen. This placed the residents at risk for inadequate nutrition. Findings included: - On 04/14/25 at 09:00 AM, observation dietary staff in the kitchen preparing the breakfast meal. On 04/14/25 at 09:10 AM, Dietary Staff BB verified she was not a Certified Dietary Manager. Dietary Staff BB stated the facility had one resident with a pureed diet. On 04/16/25 at 01:00 PM, Administrative Staff A verified Dietary Staff BB was not certified. The facility's Food Service Staffing dated 10/2024, documented that the community will employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills to carry out the food and nutrition services function. The qualified Dietitian would help oversee clinical nutrition and dietary services in the facility. The policy documented that if the Dietitian was not full-time, the community would employ another qualified nutritional professional to serve as the Dietary Manager. The person must meet one of the following qualifications: A) A certified Dietary Manager, b) A certified food service manager, c) Have similar certification in food service management and safety from a national certifying body, d) Has an associate's or higher degree in food services management or in hospitality, if the course study includes food service or restaurant management from an accredited institution or higher degree, e) Has two or more years of experience in the position of dietary manager in a nursing facility setting and has completed a course of study in food safety management, by no later than October 1, 2023, that includes topics integral to managing dietary operations including, but not limited to, foodborne illnesses, sanitization procedures, and food purchasing/receiving; and f) meets the state-established standards if applicable. The Dietary Manager would receive frequently scheduled consultations from a qualified dietician.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - On 04/14/25 at 12:00 PM, during dining observation revealed the following: Two overhead fluorescent light fixtures, with two l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - On 04/14/25 at 12:00 PM, during dining observation revealed the following: Two overhead fluorescent light fixtures, with two light bulbs in each fixture, approximately six inches by five feet located directly above two of the tables in the dining room. The covers were missing and exposed the fluorescent bulbs. On 04/14/24 at 02:00 PM, Maintenance Staff U verified the two overhead fluorescent lights in the dining room, the bulbs were not encapsulated with a plastic covering and they lacked a cover for the light fixtures. The facility's Supervision, Maintenance Services policy, dated October 2024, documented maintenance services shall be under the direct supervision of the Administrator. The policy documented the day-to-day maintenance operation is under the supervision of the Maintenance Department and he/she is responsible for scheduling preventative maintenance service. The policy documented the duties and responsibilities of the Maintenance Director are outlined in his/her job description. The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store food by professional standards for food service safety in the nourishment refrigerator located in the south hall. The facility failed to cover two fluorescent light fixtures in one of one dining room. This placed the residents, who received their food items from the south nourishment refrigerator/freezer, at risk for foodborne illness. This also placed the residents who ate in the facility's dining room at risk of getting foreign objects in their meals. Findings included: - On 04/14/25 at 09:00 AM in the south hall resident nourishment freezer revealed the following: 1. A frozen banquet salisbury meal with an expiration date of 12/24. 2. Two frozen Michelina's fettuccini [NAME] meals with an expiration date of 12/24. 3. A Michelina fettuccine alfredo with chicken and broccoli frozen meal with an expiration date of 12/24. 4. An undated to when opened 8 ounce (oz) package of Butterfinger unwrapped minis. 5. A 7.6 oz package of unwrapped Reese's minis with an expiration date of 03/25. The refrigerator contained the following: 1. An unlabeled, undated blue plastic container with meat. 2. A box with four, 8 oz cans of Glucerna rich chocolate drink with an expiration date of [DATE]. 3. Three 4 oz containers of Dannon creamy vanilla pudding with expiration 04/09/24. 4. A 4oz container of cherry gelatin without an expiration date of 04/09/24. On 04/14/25 at 09:05 AM, Licensed Nurse LN G verified the above findings and discarded the above food items. LN G stated the night shift nursing staff were responsible for checking the nourishment refrigerator/freezer food items. On 04/16/25 at 11:50 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated night shift nursing staff were responsible for checking food items in the south hall nourishment refrigerator/freezer. Administrative Nurse D stated residents' food items should be dated and have the resident's name on them. The facility's Food Safety Requirements Policy, revised 10/24, documented that all foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer would be covered, labeled, and dated. All foods and beverages belonging to residents must be labeled with the resident's name, the item, and the use by date. Expiration dates on unopened food would be observed, and used by dates indicated once the food is opened.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 37 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information through Payroll Based Journaling...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 37 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information through Payroll Based Journaling (PBJ) as required. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for unidentified and ongoing inadequate nurse staffing. Findings included: - The PBJ report provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Quarter 3 and 4 indicated the facility had excessively low weekend nurse staffing Review of the facility's weekend nursing schedules for the above Quarters revealed the facility had adequate staffing. On 04/16/25 at 11:55 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified the facility had not submitted the correct information for weekend nursing staffing and stated Administrative Staff B was responsible for submitting the PBJ information. The facility's Nursing Services Policy, revised 04/2025, documented the facility utilized the PBJ to report the following: a. Report RN hours b. Licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day c. Weekend staffing d. Star rating for the survey; and e. Reporting per guidelines
Jan 2025 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 35 residents with three residents reviewed for accidents. Based on record review, observatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 35 residents with three residents reviewed for accidents. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe environment free from preventable accidents for Resident (R) 1. On 01/15/25 at approximately 09:20 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M and CNA N transferred R1 from his wheelchair to his recliner using a Hoyer (total body mechanical lift) lift. The CNAs used the lift to suspend R1 into the air due to limited space in R1's room. CNA M turned around to position R1's recliner for R1 to sit in, turned back around to assist R1 into the recliner, and the right top lift sling strap dislodged and R1 slid out of the lift sling onto the floor. R1 hit the right side of his head and came to rest on his right side. The facility transferred R1 to the hospital where they diagnosed the resident with a fractured neck. This deficient practice placed R1 at risk for death, injury, pain, and a decrease in daily function. Findings included: - R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R1 had diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heartbeat), abnormalities of gait and mobility, muscle weakness, repeated falls, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated 12/22/24, documented R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of six, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented R1 had bilateral upper extremity impairment and bilateral lower extremity impairment. The MDS documented R1 required substantial staff assistance for eating, bathing, upper body dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS documented R1 was dependent on staff for oral hygiene, toileting, lower body dressing, bed mobility, and transfer. The MDS documented R1 had not had any falls during the assessment period. The Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 08/07/24, documented R1 had a BIMS score of 7, which indicated severely impaired cognition, had a history of false beliefs and delusions, and vivid scary dreams. The Functional Abilities CAA, dated 08/07/24, documented R1 required two staff assistance with his Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) to maintain safety. The CAA documented a full mechanical lift was utilized to transfer R1 as he was unable to bear his weight. The Falls CAA, dated 08/07/24, documented R1 as at risk for falls due to poor balance, weakness, and variable mentation. The Care Plan documented R1 required up to total assistance of one to two staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, grooming, hygiene, toileting, and bathing. (06/11/24) The care plan directed staff R1 required assistance with obtaining the correct utensils when eating and getting food onto the fork or spoon when R1 had difficulty and required a divided plate with large-handled utensils. (07/14/23) The care plan documented R1 as a fall risk and directed staff R1 was non-ambulatory and required a full lift for transfer, ensure R1 had on appropriate footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in his wheelchair, and R1 required a safe environment. (09/12/19) The Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 10/18/23, documented R1 had a fall risk score of 10, which indicated R1as a high fall risk. The EMR lacked a more recent Fall Risk Evaluation. The undated Facility Incident Report, documented on 01/15/25 at approximately 09:20 AM, CNA M, and CNA N transferred R1 from his wheelchair to his recliner using a Hoyer mechanical lift. The CNAs used the lift to suspend R1 into the air due to limited space in R1's room. CNA M turned around to position R1's recliner, for R1 to sit in, and then turned back around to assist R1 into the recliner and R1 slid out of the lift sling onto the floor. The right top lift sling strap had come unhooked from the lift cradle. R1 fell to the floor hitting the right side of his head and came to rest on his right side. CNA M called for nurse assistance in R1's room. Licensed Nurse (LN) G entered R1's room and observed R1 on the floor with his head next to the foot of his bed lying almost perpendicular to the bed on his right side. Administrative Nurse D reported to R1's room and assisted LN G in assessing R1 for obvious signs of injury. R1 denied pain during the initial assessment, pupils were reactive, and R1 was unable to complete a full neuro check due to R1's position. Due to the severity of the fall, R1 was not moved. R1 was given a pillow for comfort and an ice pack for the hematoma (collection of blood trapped in the tissues of the skin or in an organ, resulting from trauma) on the right side of his head. R1 initially denied pain, but began to complain of head, neck, and shoulder pain while on the floor. The Hoyer lift was in the room with three of the straps on the sling still attached to the lift and the right top sling was unhooked. The correct Hoyer sling had been used. LN H arrived to R1's room and was directed to call Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to send R1 to the local hospital for evaluation. EMS was notified at 09:25 AM and arrived at the facility at 09:30 AM and R1 left via ambulance. R1's son was notified of the fall and transported to the hospital at 09:45 AM. Upon investigation, staff reported the Hoyer lift sling straps had come unhooked from the Hoyer lift before while it was in use, but staff had not reported it to administration because it had not resulted in any injury CNA M's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 01/15/25, documented CNA N and CNA M transferred R1 from his wheelchair to go to his recliner. After lifting R1 with the lift, CNA M stated she turned to pull out R1's recliner from the wall and when she turned back around R1 was falling from the sling. The sling had come unhooked from the lift and R1 fell to his right side then slid the rest of the way out. CNA M called over the walkie for a nurse. CNA N's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 01/15/25, documented at approximately 09:20 AM, CNA M and CNA N transferred R1 from his wheelchair to his recliner. After lifting R1, CNA M turned around to pull the recliner from the wall and CNA N stated she was starting to move the lift towards the recliner and R1 started to fall out of his sling. CNA N stated she tried to catch R1, but he had already landed on the floor on his right side and then slid the rest of the way out. LN G's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 01/15/25, documented LN G heard the page for a nurse to respond to R1's room. LN G entered R1's room at approximately 09:20 AM and R1 was lying on the floor nearly perpendicular to his bed with his head toward the foot of the bed on his right side. CNA M and CNA N were present in R1's room. CNA M and CNA N stated they were transferring R1 with the full lift and while R1 was suspended in the air, staff were adjusting the wheelchair out of the path of the transfer, and CNA M turned to move the recliner forward and turned back around and R1 was falling to the floor. R1 landed on his head on the floor according to CNAs report. The full lift remained in R1's room and three of the lift sling straps remained attached to the lift and the front right side sling strap was no longer connected to the lift. CNA M and CNA N stated the right front lift strap came off of the hook during the transfer and caused R1 to slide out of the suspended sling and fall to the ground. LN G assessed R1 and asked R1 if he was okay and R1 replied, Yes, I think so. R1 denied pain at that time. CNA M sat on the floor beside R1. LN G assessed R1's head and noted a fluid-filled hematoma to the right center top of the head. A small amount of bleeding was noted from a pinpoint area to the top of the resident's head/forehead. Administrative Nurse D and LN H entered the resident's room. Administrative Nurse D instructed LN J to call for the ambulance and notify the emergency room, R1's primary care provider, and R1's responsible party. R1 left with EMS by ambulance on a scoop board. The Radiology Report, dated 01/15/25, documented R1 sustained an acute type II odontoid process (neck) fracture without significant displacement. The Discharge Instructions, dated 01/16/25, documented R1's diagnoses were neck fracture and urinary tract infection. The discharge instructions directed R1 to wear the C-collar (medical device to prevent movement of the neck) for six to eight weeks. A follow-up appointment was scheduled for 02/04/25. The Discharge Summary, dated 01/16/25, documented R1 was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the hospital after sustaining a neck fracture after a fall from a Hoyer lift. R1 hit his forehead on the floor when he fell, which resulted in a hematoma to his forehead and neck fracture. R1's case was discussed with neurosurgery who recommended C-collar placement for six to eight weeks to allow for healing. R1 admitted to the hospital overnight for pain control and to ensure he tolerated the C-collar. The neurosurgeon stated at R1's age he could refuse the C-collar as long as R1's family understood the risks of an unstable neck fracture and the potential for a spinal cord injury without the C-collar. Given R1's age, and previous status at the nursing home, R1's prognosis was noted to be guarded. If R1 continued to decline it would be appropriate for comfort care measures at the nursing home. On 01/21/25 at 10:45 AM R1 laid in bed with his eyes closed. The head of the bed was up at 40 degrees. R1 wore a C-Collar around his neck. R1's chin continually dropped below the chin holder of the C-collar, and LN I placed her hand on R1's forehead pushed his head up and replaced the C-collar under R1's chin. R1 had a large purple bruise on his right temple. R1 did not open his eyes or respond verbally. On 01/21/25 at 10:45 AM, LN I stated R1 was running a temperature and she called his doctor to report the findings. LN I stated she felt like R1 had stasis pneumonia as his lungs were course. LN I stated no CNA had ever reported to her the straps on the Hoyer lift would come off intermittently, otherwise the facility would not have been using that Hoyer lift. LN I stated after R1 came back with the C-collar there was no way he could eat normal food, so the facility had speech therapy consult and they changed R1's diet to pureed with nectar consistency fluids and R1 was a full assist for eating and drinking. LN I stated right after R1 came back she gave him a drink of water through a straw, R1 was so very thirsty, kept drinking, and then ended up coughing. LN I thought R1 aspirated at that time. On 01/21/25 at 11:00 AM, CNA M stated she and CNA N went into R1's room to get him from his wheelchair to his recliner after breakfast. CNA M stated they lifted R1 into the air and CNA N removed the wheelchair while CNA M positioned R1's recliner away from the wall so he could be sat down. When CNA M turned around, R1 was falling from the lift sling. CNA M stated she hated that Hoyer lift because the lift sling hooks would come off of the Hoyer attachments. CNA M stated she reported this finding to the administration but was told to just watch the straps. On 01/21/25 at 11:15 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated R1's fall was completely preventable if the CNAs reported the lift sling straps were coming off during transfers. Administrative Nurse D stated the CNAs reported another time that the straps came off and it was when a resident was barely off the bed and the lower strap came unhooked and dropped the resident's leg about two inches to the bed. Administrative Nurse D stated the Hoyer lift had been removed from the facility and was inaccessible to staff. The facility rented another Hoyer lift from a medical equipment provider. The facility educated all current staff to notify administration when equipment was not working properly. The facility educated all current staff on how to use the new lift safely and lift use competencies were completed for all current staff. The facility's Accidents Policy, revised 08/2022, documented our facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible. Resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are facility-wide priorities. Safety risks and environmental hazards are identified on an ongoing basis through a combination of employee training, employee monitoring, and reporting processes, Quality Assurance reviews of safety and incident/accident reports, and facility-wide commitment to safety at all levels of the organization including staff, residents and families. Employees shall be trained and in serviced on potential hazards and how to identify and report accident hazards and try to prevent avoidable accidents. The facility's Safe Lifting and Movement of Residents Policy, revised 10/2009, documented in order to protect the safety and well-being of staff and residents and to promote quality care, this facility uses appropriate techniques and devices to lift and move residents. Staff responsible for direct resident care will be trained in the use of manual and mechanical lifting devices. Mechanical lifting devices shall be used for heavy lifting, including lifting and moving residents when necessary. Staff will be observed for competency in using mechanical lifts periodically for adherence to policies and procedures regarding use of equipment and safe lifting techniques. Maintenance Staff shall perform routine checks and maintenance of equipment used for lifting to ensure that it remains in good working order. All equipment design and use will meet or exceed guidelines and regulations concerning resident safety. The facility failed to provide a safe environment free from preventable accidents for R1. This deficient practice placed R1 at risk for death, injury, pain, and a decrease in daily function. On 01/21/25 at 12:20 PM, Administrative Staff A and Administrative Nurse D were provided the IJ template and notified the facility failed to provide a safe environment free from preventable accidents for R1. The facility identified and implemented immediate corrective actions, which were completed on 01/15/25 and prior to the start of the survey on 01/21/25 and included: the Hoyer lift was removed from use and could no longer be accessed by staff. A new lift was rented from a medical equipment company, education was provided to current nursing staff on how to use the new lift, current staff were educated on the need to notify administration when equipment is not working properly, and Total Mechanical Lift competency was completed for all current nursing staff. The corrective actions were verified on-site on 01/21/25 at 11:30 AM. Due to the corrective action completed before the onsite survey, the citation was deemed past noncompliance at a J scope and severity.
Aug 2023 3 deficiencies
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 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and administer medications in a safe manne...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and administer medications in a safe manner for one of two medication carts and the facility failed to discard an expired bottle of melatonin (supplement used to treat sleeping problems) in one of two medication rooms. This placed the residents at risk to receive expired supplements and medication errors. Findings included: - On 08/02/23 at 07:28 AM, observation during medication administration revealed Resident (R) 28 entered the dining room. Licensed Nurse (LN) G opened the top drawer of her medication cart where R28 and R12s' medications were set up in medication cups with each resident's initials on the two separate cups. On 08/02/23 at 07:28 AM, LN G stated when she comes in to work in the morning, she pre-sets the residents medications who she know would be in the dining room at 07:00 AM. On 08/02/23 at 08:32 AM, LN G stated she should not set up residents medications ahead of time. On 08/02/23 at 08:37 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated staff should not set medications up prior to administering them; they should pop them out of the card then immediately administer to the residents. The facility's Administering oral Medications Policy, dated 05/22, instructed staff to follow the following procedure when administering residents medications: Staff should verify that there is a physician's medication order for this procedure. review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. assemble the equipment, wash hands, arrange supplies in the medication room or move the medication cart outside the resident's room place the Medication Administration Record (MAR) within easy viewing distance. unlock the medication cart. select the drug from the unit dose drawer or stock supply. check the label on the medication and confirm the medication name and dose with MAR . Check the expiration date on the medication. return any expire medication to the pharmacy. check the medication dose. recheck to confirm the proper dose. prepare the correct dose of medication, confirm identity of the resident explain the procedure to the resident place medications on the bedside table or tray then administer the medications. The facility failed to administer and store medications in a safe manner, placing the residents at risk for receiving the wrong medications. - On 08/02/23 at 09:40 AM, observation in the medication room revealed a bottle of melatonin, 1 milligram (mg) with expiration date 06/2023. On 08/02/23 at 09:41, Licensed Nurse (LN) N verified the above observation, discarded the medication, and stated the night shift was responsible for checking expiration dates on medications in the medication room. LN Nstated the pharmacist came to the facility once a month and checked the carts. On 08/02/23 at 2:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated night shift staff should check expiration dates on medications in the medication room and discard all expired medications. The facility's Storage of Medications Policy, dated 05/22 documented the facility should not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals, all such drugs should be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. The facility failed to discard or destroy an expired bottle of melatonin. This placed the residents at risk for receiving an expired/ineffective dose.
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 had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional stand...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the residents who resided in the facility and received food from the nutrition refrigerator, when staff failed to label and date food items kept in the nutrition refrigerator. The facility staff failed to assess and record freezer temperatures for the nutrition freezer. This placed the affected residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: - On 08/01/23 at 09:53 AM, observation revealed the following in the nutrition refrigerator: An unlabeled, undated box of chicken alfredo meal, Two unlabeled, undated 15.5-ounce jars of salsa. An unlabeled, undated deli meat sandwich. A sticky brown substance in the refrigerator door in the small compartment on the left upper corner, approximately four inches (in) x two in. The refrigerator trays had numerous areas of a blackish substance which varied in size. The freezer lacked a thermometer and lacked evidenced staff measured the freezer temperature for August 2023. The July 2023 temperature logs for the nutrition refrigerator/freezer lacked evidence staff measures freezer temperatures. On 08/01/23 at 10:00 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the above finding and stated nursing staff should be checking and recording temperatures in the nutrition freezer. On 08/01/23 at 02:00 PM, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) BB verified the lack of a freezer log for July 2023 and stated nursing was responsible for checking and recording the temperatures in the nutrition freezer. The facility's Refrigerators and Freezers Policy, dated 10/22, documented monthly tracking sheets for all refrigerators and freezers would be posted to record temperatures. All food should be appropriately labeled and dated to ensure proper rotation by expiration dates. received dates (dates of delivery) would be marked on cases and on individual items removed from cases for storage. The facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This placed the affected residents at risk for receiving foodborne illness.
MINOR (C)

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 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the number of nursing (licensed and unlic...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the number of nursing (licensed and unlicensed) staff and actual hours worked was posted for all four days of the onsite survey. Findings included: - On 08/01/23 (Tuesday) at 09:00 AM, observation revealed the daily nursing staff numbers and hours was not posted in the facility. On 08/02/23 (Wednesday) at 08:00 AM, observation revealed the daily nursing staff numbers and hours was not posted in the facility. On 08/03/23 (Thursday) at 08:00 AM, observation revealed the daily nursing staff numbers and hours was not posted in the facility. On 08/07/23 (Monday) at 08:30 AM, observation revealed the daily nursing staff numbers and hours was not posted in the facility. On 08/07/23 at 08:58 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated the daily staffing schedule was in a notebook at the front desk . On 08/07/23 at 10:09 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the daily staffing schedule was not posted and stated it was kept in a green binder at the front desk, cooperate told her the regulation changed and the facility had to put each shift in the notebook. The facility's Posted Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers Policy, dated 11/22, documented at the beginning of each shift, the number of licensed Nurses and the number of unlicensed nursing personal directly responsible for the resident care would be posted in prominent location (accessible to residents and visitors) and in a clear and readable form. The facility failed to ensure the daily staff nursing staff numbers and actual hours worked was posted for all four days of the onsite survey.
Feb 2022 3 deficiencies
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 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with one reviewed for change of condition. Based on...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with one reviewed for change of condition. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to notify Resident (R) 140's representative when staff ripped off his loose toenail during a transfer. This placed R140 at risk for uninformed treatment decisions and/or delayed wound care treatments. Findings included: - R140's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R140 had diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), hemiparesis (muscular weakness of one half of the body), pain in right knee, and reduced mobility. R140's Quarterly Minimum Data Set, (MDS) dated [DATE], documented the resident had short- and long-term memory problems and severe impaired cognition. The MDS documented R140 required total staff assistance with locomotion off unit and extensive staff assistance with the rest of his activities of daily livings (ADLs). The MDS documented R140 had no skin issues. R140's Hemiplegia/Hemiparesis Care Plan, revised on 12/30/21, documented the resident had a stroke which affected his left side and required extensive staff assistance with ADLs. R140's Skin Inspection Care Plan, revised on 12/30/21, instructed staff to check his nail length, trim, clean them on bath day as necessary, and report any changes to the nurse. The Nurses Note, dated 02/02/22 at 07:02 AM, documented R140's left great toenail was loose, very thick and discolored, and ripped off while staff transferred him to the wheelchair for his shower. The Nurses Note documented R140's left great toenail bed was bloody and staff applied pressure, cleansed it with wound cleanser, wrapped the toe in gauze, and secured it with tape. Review of R140's EMR lacked documentation R140's representative was notified of the incident. On 02/10/22 at 01:17 PM, observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) G entered R140's room and told him she was going to change the dressing on his left great toenail. LN G washed her hands, applied gloves, removed the dressing. The wound bed was red with no bleeding. There was bruising at the tip of the resident's toe. LN G removed and discarded her gloves, applied new gloves, and cleansed the wound area with normal saline on a 4 x 4 gauze pad. R140 jerked his foot away. LN G removed and discarded her gloves, applied new gloves, squeezed bacitracin (topical antibiotic) ointment onto the wound, applied a telfa (non stick dressing) pad, wrapped the great toe with gauze, and secured it with tape. On 02/16/22 at 01:24 PM, LN H verified lack of documentation in R140's EMR regarding notification of R140's representative in regards to the incident where his toenail was ripped off. On 02/16/22 at 01:58 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified R140's representative had not been notified of the incident where his toenail was ripped off during a transfer. Administrative Nurse D stated it happened around shift change and both nurses thought the other one had notified the representative, but neither had contacted R140's representative. The facility's Change in a Resident's Condition or Status policy, revised on May 2021, documented the facility staff should promptly notify the resident, his or her attending physician and resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status. The facility failed to notify R140's representative when staff ripped off his toenail during a transfer. This placed R140 at risk for uninformed treatment decisions and/or delayed wound care treatments.
CONCERN (E)

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 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an environment free of accident hazards...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an environment free of accident hazards for two of two shower/whirlpool rooms when the facility failed to adequately secure harmful chemicals. This placed five cognitively impaired, independently mobile residents residing in the facility at risk for harm or injury related to avoidable hazards. Findings included: - On 02/09/22 at 08:40 AM, observation revealed the west shower room with an unlocked cabinet. The cabinet contained a quart spray bottle of Peroxide Multi surface cleaner and disinfectant and a quart spray bottle of lemon scented disinfectant. Both spray bottles labels documented, Hazardous to humans do not ingest, can cause eye irritation. On 02/09/22 at 08:50 AM, observation revealed the north whirlpool room with an unlocked cabinet. The cabinet contained two quart spray bottles of Bio Enzymatic Odor Eliminator and one quart spray bottle of Peroxide Multi surface cleaner and disinfectant. The three bottles labels documented, Hazardous to humans do not ingest, can cause eye irritation. On 02/09/22 at 08:50 AM, Administrative Staff A verified the west shower room and north whirlpool room cabinets should be locked at all times. On 02/09/22 at 9:05 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the west shower room and north whirlpool room cabinets contained chemicals and should be locked at all times. Administrative Nurse D verified a total of five cognitively impaired independently mobile residents resided in the facility. The facility's Cleaning, Disinfecting and Storage of Chemicals policy, dated May 2021, documented it is the intent of the facility to keep all chemicals out of reach of cognitively impaired residents. All chemicals should be stored in a locked cabinet. The facility failed to adequately secure harmful chemicals in two of two shower/whirlpool rooms, placing the cognitively impaired independently mobile residents at risk for injury.
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 had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to distribute and serve food in accordance with pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one of one facility kitchen. This placed the 43 residents who received food from the facility kitchen at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: - On 02/10/22 at 09:45 AM, observation revealed the following: The outer layer of wood peeling from eight under counter cupboards, two upper cabinets by the eyewash station, and nine drawers. The shelf above the stove had sticky gray substance. Missing mopboard, approximately 18 inches (in), below the three sink and approximately 4 feet (ft) by the steam table. On 02/10/22 at 09:45 AM, Dietary Staff (DS) BB verified the above findings. The facility's Sanitization policy, revised December 2021, documented all kitchens, kitchen areas and dining areas should be kept clean. The food services manager would be responsible for scheduling staff for regular cleaning of kitchen and dining areas. The facility failed to distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one of one facility kitchen. This placed the 43 residents who received food from the facility kitchen at risk for foodborne illness.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • 27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below Kansas's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $16,153 in fines. Above average for Kansas. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (54/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 54/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Smith Center Health And Rehab's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Kansas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Smith Center Health And Rehab Staffed?

CMS rates SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 27%, compared to the Kansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Smith Center Health And Rehab?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 11 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 Smith Center Health And Rehab?

SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB 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 MISSION HEALTH COMMUNITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 45 certified beds and approximately 38 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SMITH CENTER, Kansas.

How Does Smith Center Health And Rehab Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (27%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Smith Center Health And Rehab?

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 Smith Center Health And Rehab Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB 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 3-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 Smith Center Health And Rehab Stick Around?

Staff at SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 27%, the facility is 19 percentage points below the Kansas average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Smith Center Health And Rehab Ever Fined?

SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB has been fined $16,153 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kansas average of $33,240. 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 Smith Center Health And Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?

SMITH CENTER HEALTH AND REHAB 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.