751 Blake Street, Edwardsville, KS 66111 · Wyandotte County · (913) 441-1900
102 certified beds, about 93 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 175245 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 5, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Kansas average is 9.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since December 2022, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $33,846 in the last three years; the largest was $15,620, and the latest is dated March 5, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.24 hours per resident per day, against 4.07 across Kansas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.36 of those hours.
22.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Kansas average 48.1%).
CMS links it to Mission Health Communities, an affiliated group of 29 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff appropriately stored, labeled, and dated foods after the original storage container was opened.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement a water management program for Legionella disease (Legionella is a bacterium spread through mist, such as from air-conditioning units for large buildings. Adults over the age of 50 and people with weak immune systems, chronic lung disease, or heavy tobacco use are most at risk of developing pneumonia caused by Legionella). Findings Included:- On 04/06/2026 at 11:51 AM, Maintenance Supervisor (MS) U verified the facility had no water management program. MS U stated he tested water temperatures daily in the laundry room and resident rooms but did not document them. MS U stated he had the testing material for Legionella but had not used it. Maintenance Staff U stated he was unaware of how to establish a water management program but would get with the facility's corporation to find out. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to provide care for Resident (R) 4 and R1 in a manner that protected and promoted their dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a 14-day stop date or a specified duration with rationale for Resident (R)47's ongoing as needed (PRN) antianxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people) medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to promote an environment free of hazards for Resident (R) 6, who smoked cigarettes. R6 was assessed for smoking practices by the facility, and the facility documented she required staff assistance, the facility failed to provide her with the necessary safety equipment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to identify trauma-based triggers related to Resident (R) 21's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD- a mental disorder characterized by an acute emotional response to a traumatic event or situation involving severe environmental stress) when staff failed to implement individualized interventions to prevent re-traumatization to R21.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported when Resident (R) 1's blood glucose (the main sugar in your blood and your body's primary energy source) level was below the physician's ordered parameter and the physician ordered insulin (a hormone that lowers the level of glucose in the blood) was not held. The facility failed to ensure the CP identified and reported when R27's physician ordered parameters for blood pressure and/or pulse were not obtained and recorded prior to the administration of his ordered antihypertensive (a class of medication used to treat high blood pressure) medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1's physician ordered insulin (a hormone that lowers the level of glucose in the blood) was held when the blood glucose (the main sugar in your blood and your body's primary energy source) level was below the physician's ordered parameter. The facility failed to ensure R27's physician ordered parameters for blood pressure and/or pulse were obtained and recorded prior to the administration of his ordered antihypertensive (a class of medication used to treat high blood pressure) medications. The facility failed to ensure R86 had physician ordered parameters for his blood glucose prior to injection of insulin.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure biologicals were properly monitored for safe storage temperatures, dated upon opening, maintained within safe expiration dates, and secured to prevent unauthorized access. This deficient practice affected 1 of 1 medication room refrigerators and 4 resident-specific insulin (a hormone that lowers the level of glucose in the blood) pens, Resident (R) 13, R75, and R72.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a coordinated plan of care, which coordinated care and services provided by the facility with the care and services provided by hospice, was developed and available for Resident (R)47 and R27.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information through Payroll Based Journaling (PBJ) as required.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 94 residents. The sample included three residents reviewed for elopement (when a cognitively impaired resident leaves the facility without the knowledge or supervision of staff) risk. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent and then identify an elopement for Resident (R) 1, who had a BIMS of 15, schizoaffective disorder (a mental disorder characterized by gross distortion of reality, disturbances of language and communication, and fragmentation of thought), and a guardian. On 02/05/26 at 02:45 AM, R1 left the facility without staff knowledge or supervision by climbing a fence surrounding a smoking patio at the facility and using a dining room chair. Staff were unaware of R1's absence for nine hours due to a failure to complete resident safety rounds. [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 93 residents. The sample included three residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 2 remained free from verbal abuse. On 01/19/26 at approximately 03:20 PM, Dietary Staff (DS) BB verbally abused R2, and Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R had to step between DS BB and R2 in order to assist R2 out of the situation. Per the interview with Administrative Staff A and CMA R, DS BB called R2 an [expletive] during the incident. The facility's failure to ensure staff did not verbally abuse residents placed R2 in immediate jeopardy. [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility reported a census of 96 residents, with 31 residents assessed at risk for elopement (when a resident leaves the premises or safe area without staff knowledge), and five residents sampled. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided adequate supervision and appropriate interventions to prevent the elopement of cognitively impaired R1, who had poor safety awareness. On 01/23/25 at approximately 04:58 PM, R1 exited the facility, unimpeded and without staff knowledge, and R1 remained out of the facility without staff knowledge for approximately 45 minutes, with outdoor temperatures between 16 and 18 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Local law enforcement located R1 approximately 43 minutes later at 05:45 PM, and returned R1 to the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 94 residents. The sample included 19 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to employ a full-time certified dietary manager for the 94 residents who resided in the facility and received meals from the facility kitchen. This placed the residents at risk for inadequate nutrition.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 94 residents. The sample included 19 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, in one of one kitchen. This placed the residents who received their meals from the facility's kitchen at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 94 residents. The sample included 19 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)35, R19, R38, and R72 or their representative with written information regarding the facility bed hold policy when they were transferred to the hospital. This placed the resident at risk of not being permitted to return and resume residence in the nursing facility.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 94 residents. The sample included 19 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to discard Resident (R)22, R51, and R82s' insulin (a hormone that lowers the level of glucose in the blood) flex pens when outdated and failed to discard expired stock medications. This deficient practice placed the affected residents at risk for ineffective medications.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 94 residents. The sample included 19 residents with six residents reviewed for immunizations to include pneumococcal (type of bacterial infection) vaccinations. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to assess Resident (R)85, R16, R57, and R42 for eligibility to receive further pneumococcal immunizations (helps protect against serious illnesses like pneumonia- inflammation of the lungs) and failed to follow the latest guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) when they failed to offer, obtain an informed declination or a physician documented contraindication for the PCV20 pneumococcal vaccination. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk of acquiring, spreading, and experiencing complications from the pneumococcal disease.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 94 residents. The sample included 19 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide written notification of facility-initiated transfers to the residents or their representatives for Resident (R)72 and R35. The facility also failed to send notification of facility-initiated discharges and transfers to the office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman as required. This placed the residents at risk for impaired rights.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 94 residents. The sample included 19 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete the required Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident (R) 81. This placed the resident at risk for inappropriate care and unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 94 residents. The sample included 19 residents, with three reviewed for smoking. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow the plan of care for smoking for one resident, Resident (R) 6, and failed to assess R53 for safe smoking. This placed the residents at risk for preventable accidents and injury.
Inspectors wrote- R81's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) included diagnoses of schizoaffective disorders (a mental disorder characterized by gross distortion of reality, disturbances of language and communication, and fragmentation of thought), anxiety disorder (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear), major depressive disorder (major mood disorder which causes persistent feelings of sadness), deaf nonspeaking, pneumonia, lack of coordination, pain, and drug-induced secondary Parkinsonism (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness). [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that there was a registered nurse (RN) on staff for at least eight consecutive hours, seven days a week. This deficiency had the potential for poor quality of care and negative outcomes for the residents.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience for when staff stood over Resident (R) 53 instead of sitting beside him while assisting him with meals. This placed R53 at risk for impaired dignity and decreased psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan for Resident (R) 92 related to resident's choice to smoke and include adaptive equipment needed to ensure safety during smoking. This deficient practice placed R92 at risk of injury or harm from possible burns.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a skin care plan for Resident (R) 49 that included interventions and treatments in regard to a skin issue. This deficient practice placed R49 at risk for further avoidable skin damage.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Six sampled residents were reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to consistently provide bathing care for dependent resident (R) 49, R67, and R70. This deficient practice placed these residents at risk of skin breakdown and possible infection.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 49 received appropriate interventions and treatments in regard to a skin issue. This deficient practice placed R49 at risk for further avoidable skin damage.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe environment free from accident hazards for Resident (R) 92's when staff failed to offer his smoking apron, failed to ensure hallways were free from obstacles, and failed to remove snow/ice from the resident smoking area. This deficient practice placed R92 at risk of injury or harm from possible falls or burns.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents with four reviewed for nutrition. Base on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to include the Registered Dietician (RD) in R67's individualized care and implement dietary interventions to prevent a gradual weight loss. The facility additionally failed to follow the RD's recommendation for weight weights. This deficient practice placed R67 at risk for ongoing wieght loss. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one resident reviewed for hemodialysis (procedure using a machine to remove excess water, solutes, and toxins from the blood in people whose kidneys can no longer perform these functions naturally). Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to document an arteriovenous (AV-a surgically created connection between artery and a vein used for hemodialysis) fistula for thrill (palpable vibration) and bruit (an audible vascular sound associated with turbulent blood flow usually heard with stethoscope that may occasionally also be palpated as a thrill) consistently for Resident (R) 72. This deficient practice placed R72 at risk of potential adverse outcomes and physical complications related to dialysis.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported irregularities for a lack of a 14-day duration for as needed psychotropic (alters mood or thought) medication for Resident (R) 77. The facility failed to follow up on the CP's recommendations for R2 and R83. This deficient practice placed these residents at risk for unnecessary medication administration thus leading to possible harmful side effects.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The sample included 18 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the physician had documented a duration for use of an as needed psychotropic (alters mood or thought) medication for Resident (R) 77, R2 and R83. This deficient practice placed these residents at risk for unnecessary medication administration thus leading to possible harmful side effects.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 88 residents. The facility had one main kitchen. The facility had three residents that required puree (smooth, crushed or blended food) food Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure dietary staff properly washed and sanitized food preparation equipment after use. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for food borne illnesses and cross contamination.
55 fire safety citations on file: 12 on August 21, 2024, 22 on December 28, 2022, 21 on May 13, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 5, 2026 | Fine | $9,113 |
| January 28, 2026 | Fine | $15,620 |
| January 29, 2025 | Fine | $9,113 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Kansas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 2.24 | 4.07 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.36 | 0.71 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 1.99 | 3.60 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.53 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.35 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 22.0% | 48.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 42.0% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 2.71 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 2.34 on weekdays and 1.99 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.29 in April to June 2025 to 2.24 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 2.24 | 0.36 | 2.34 | 1.99 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 93 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.27 | 0.36 | 2.33 | 2.10 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.38 | 0.42 | 2.46 | 2.18 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.29 | 0.40 | 2.42 | 1.97 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 92 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Kansas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.01 | 0.67 | 4.19 | 3.56 | 4.8% | 0.6% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.27 | $17.41 to $21.24 | 24,610 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.69 | $27.05 to $33.40 | 7,530 |
| Registered nurses | $38.14 | $35.24 to $45.53 | 33,800 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Kansas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 2.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 4.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 16.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.2 | 22.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.3 | 11.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.5 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Edwardsville Care and Rehab's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 51.5% · Kansas: 42 better, 17 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 6 eligible stays.
10.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Kansas: 3 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 32 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Kansas: 3 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 16 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Kansas55.7% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 16 residents counted.
5.0% this home
Median of homes: Kansas0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 20 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Kansas2.1% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 20 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure.
Median of homes: Kansas99.3% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: EDWARDSVILLE OPERATOR LLC. CMS links this home to Mission Health Communities, a group of 29 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coronado Operator, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 10/01/2019 |
| Barres, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/01/2019 | |
| Curis Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/01/2019 | |
| T and C Capital Assets, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/01/2019 | |
| Windward Health Partners LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/01/2019 | |
| Yoakum, Jamie | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/19/2024 | |
| Edwardsville Operator LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2019 | |
| Mission Health Communities, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2019 | |
| Lindeman, Stuart | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2019 | |
| Thomas, Tina | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2019 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.