BRIGHTON PLACE WEST
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Brighton Place West has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerns. It ranks #111 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, placing it in the top half, but it is #7 out of 15 in Shawnee County, meaning only a few local options are better. The facility is currently improving, with issues decreasing from four in 2024 to just one in 2025. Staffing is a weakness, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a high turnover rate of 60%, significantly above the Kansas average of 48%. However, it does have good RN coverage, exceeding 96% of state facilities, which is important as RNs can catch issues that other staff might miss. There have been specific concerns noted in recent inspections. A critical finding involved a resident with severe mental health needs who did not receive the necessary behavioral care, leading to increased erratic behavior. Another serious issue was a significant medication error that resulted in a resident experiencing distressing hallucinations. Additionally, there were hygiene concerns in the kitchen, with food not being stored properly, which poses a risk of foodborne illnesses. Overall, while the facility shows some potential for improvement in care, families should be aware of the serious issues that have been reported.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Kansas
- #111/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $15,076 in fines. Higher than 83% of Kansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kansas. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Kansas average (2.9)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
14pts above Kansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above Kansas average of 48%
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Aug 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
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 50 residents. The sample included three residents. Based on observation, record review, and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
4 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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents with five residents reviewed for significant medication errors. Based on record review, observation, and interview, t...
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 F0576
(Tag F0576)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to deliver mail to facility residents on Saturdays.
Findings inclu...
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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - R20's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented that R20 had a diagnosis of overactive bladder (a condition that causes sudde...
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to prepare, store, distribute, and serve food under ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
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
The facility identified a census of 49 residents. The sample included 13 residents with two reviewed for dignity. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Res...
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 identified a census of 49 residents with 13 residents included in the sample. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to issue CMS (Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services)...
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 49. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the...
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 identified a census of 49 residents. The sample included 13 residents with one resident reviewed for quality of car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 49 residents. The sample included 13 residents with four residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 49 residents. The sample included 13 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 49 residents. The sample included 13 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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 49 residents. The sample include 13 residents. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide activities consistently on Saturdays. This defi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0680
(Tag F0680)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 49 residents. The sample include 14 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a certified activity professional...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 49 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to obtain pneumococcal (pneumonia infection that inflame...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
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 49 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient Licensed Nurse (LN) coverage and ade...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
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 49 residents. The sample include 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a system to ensure mail was consi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2021
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Findings Include:
-The electronic medical record review (EMR) documented the following diagnoses for R10: hypothyroidism (condi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 43 residents. The sample included 14 residents. Based on observation and interviews, the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 43 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure laundry staff failed to cover clothing racks when transporting clean...
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: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $15,076 in fines. Above average for Kansas. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (41/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Brighton Place West's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BRIGHTON PLACE WEST 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 Brighton Place West Staffed?
CMS rates BRIGHTON PLACE WEST's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Brighton Place West?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at BRIGHTON PLACE WEST during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 17 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 Brighton Place West?
BRIGHTON PLACE WEST 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 RECOVER-CARE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 98% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in TOPEKA, Kansas.
How Does Brighton Place West Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, BRIGHTON PLACE WEST's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Brighton Place West?
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 Brighton Place West Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BRIGHTON PLACE WEST 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 Brighton Place West Stick Around?
Staff turnover at BRIGHTON PLACE WEST is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Brighton Place West Ever Fined?
BRIGHTON PLACE WEST has been fined $15,076 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kansas average of $33,230. 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 Brighton Place West on Any Federal Watch List?
BRIGHTON PLACE WEST 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.