CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Cheyenne County Village Inc has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance and significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #178 out of 295 nursing homes in Kansas, placing them in the bottom half of the state's facilities, although they are the only option in Cheyenne County. The facility is reportedly improving, having reduced issues from nine in 2023 to two in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars, although the 50% turnover rate is average for the state. However, the facility has faced serious concerns, including a failure to properly monitor and treat a resident's Stage 3 pressure ulcer, leading to infection, and inadequate pain management during dressing changes, which resulted in untreated pain. Additionally, the kitchen did not maintain proper food safety standards, risking foodborne illness for residents.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Kansas
- #178/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $13,287 in fines. Lower than most Kansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Kansas average (2.9)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Kansas avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record
Apr 2024
2 deficiencies
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 43 residents with three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Based on record review and i...
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 F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 43 residents with three residents reviewed for pain. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 1 with pain relieving measure...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
9 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 24 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview ...
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 24 residents. The sample included 12 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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 24 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview t...
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 24 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 24 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview t...
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
The facility had a census of 24 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed follow acceptable standards of infection control wh...
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 had a census of 24 residents. The facility identified one main kitchen. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to prepare, store, and serve food in accorda...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 24 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 →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 24 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility lacked evidence the required committee members attended the Quality Asse...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
15 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 27. The sample included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two residents reviewed for abuse and four residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, record review, and in...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two residents reviewed for abuse and four resid...
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 27 residents. The sample included 12 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 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 27 residents. The sample included 12 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 F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with one reviewed for discharge. Based on interview...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with two reviewed for activities of daily living (A...
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 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with two reviewed for activities of daily living (A...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for constipation. Based on observa...
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 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with four reviewed for falls. Based on observation,...
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 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two reviewed for urinary catheter (tube inserte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 27. The sample included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to e...
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
The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included twelve residents with two reviewed for behaviors. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide deme...
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 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 27 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to maintain an ongoing infection surveillance program which includ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2021
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
- R11's Quarterly MDS, dated 03/05/21, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition and required limited assistance of one staff for transfers, unsteady balance, upper and lower functiona...
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 28 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with six reviewed for accidents. Based on observati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 28 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility had a census of 28 residents. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store food in a safe and sanitary manner for the 28 residents that resided in the facility and rec...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 28 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the last three years complaint survey investigation res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $13,287 in fines. Above average for Kansas. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (31/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Cheyenne County Village Inc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Cheyenne County Village Inc Staffed?
CMS rates CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the Kansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Cheyenne County Village Inc?
State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 28 with potential for harm, and 1 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 Cheyenne County Village Inc?
CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 30 certified beds and approximately 22 residents (about 73% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ST FRANCIS, Kansas.
How Does Cheyenne County Village Inc Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Cheyenne County Village Inc?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Cheyenne County Village Inc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-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 Cheyenne County Village Inc Stick Around?
CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC has a staff turnover rate of 50%, which is about average for Kansas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Cheyenne County Village Inc Ever Fined?
CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC has been fined $13,287 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kansas average of $33,212. 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 Cheyenne County Village Inc on Any Federal Watch List?
CHEYENNE COUNTY VILLAGE INC is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.