MOUNT ST MARY
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Mount St. Mary in Wichita, Kansas, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families looking for care options. It ranks #30 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 29 in Sedgwick County, meaning only one local facility has a better ranking. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2023 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a rating of 5 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 27%, significantly lower than the state average of 48%. While there have been no fines reported, which is positive, there are concerns regarding care planning and infection surveillance, as some residents did not have comprehensive care plans created and infection logs were not consistently maintained.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Kansas
- #30/295
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below Kansas's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 58 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.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent 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
No Significant Concerns Identified
This facility shows no red flags. Among Kansas's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
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 reported a census of 22 residents with 15 residents sampled. Based on interviews and record review, the facility fa...
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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 22 residents with 15 residents sampled, including one resident reviewed for respiratory care. ...
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 F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 22 residents with 15 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for pain. Based on in...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 22 residents with 15 residents selected for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 12 was free from un...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 22 residents. Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to complete an annual performance review at least once every 12 months for Certified Nurse Ai...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 22 residents. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to display accurate, publicly accessible, and identifiable staffing information on a daily ba...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 23 residents with 14 selected for review. Based on interview and record review, the facility f...
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 reported a census of 23 residents with 14 residents sampled. Based on interview and record review, the facility fai...
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 reported a census of 23 residents with 14 selected for review which included three residents selected for Activitie...
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 reported a census of 23 residents with 14 residents sampled including three residents sampled for accidents. Based ...
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 reported a census of 23 residents with 14 selected for review which included two residents reviewed for urinary inc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 23 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an annual performance review at least once every 12 months for one of five Certifi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 23 residents with 14 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review, th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 23 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing infection surveillance to determine risks of infections to the residents of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Grade B+ (88/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Kansas.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
- • 27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below Kansas's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Mount St Mary's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MOUNT ST MARY an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Kansas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Mount St Mary Staffed?
CMS rates MOUNT ST MARY's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much 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. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Mount St Mary?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at MOUNT ST MARY during 2023 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Mount St Mary?
MOUNT ST MARY 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 24 certified beds and approximately 21 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WICHITA, Kansas.
How Does Mount St Mary Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, MOUNT ST MARY's overall rating (5 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 (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mount St Mary?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Mount St Mary Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MOUNT ST MARY has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Kansas. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Mount St Mary Stick Around?
Staff at MOUNT ST MARY 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 Mount St Mary Ever Fined?
MOUNT ST MARY has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Mount St Mary on Any Federal Watch List?
MOUNT ST MARY 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.