105 N Highway 99, Westmoreland, KS 66549 · Pottawatomie County · (785) 457-2801
40 certified beds, about 29 residents a day · Non profit - Other · Medicare and Medicaid since 2003
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 175471 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 28, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Kansas average is 9.5, the national average 9.2).
Of 29 health citations since March 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $19,406 in the last three years; the largest was $11,213, and the latest is dated February 26, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.25 hours per resident per day, against 4.07 across Kansas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.08 of those hours.
65.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Kansas average 48.1%).
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 29 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide the services of a full-time certified dietary manager for the 31 residents who resided in the facility and received their meals from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an environment free from accident hazards when staff failed to secure chemicals safely from access by the seven cognitively impaired, independently mobile residents who resided in the facility's memory care unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store medications and biologicals adequately when staff failed to discard expired stock medication from the emergency kit.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to provide care for Resident (R)7 in a manner that protected and promoted their dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify Resident (R) 36's family when R36 had a change in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an appropriate indication or a documented physician rationale, which included unsuccessful attempts at nonpharmacological symptom management and risk versus benefits for the continued use for Resident (R)29's and R12's antipsychotic (a medication used to treat any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment testing) medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 6 and/or their representatives with a written notification of transfer for facility-initiated transfers and a bed hold policy upon transfer to the hospital. The facility further failed to notify the long-term care ombudsman (LTCO) of transfers to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 31 residents and one kitchen. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to employ a full-time Certified Dietary Manager for the 31 residents who reside in the facility and received their meals from the kitchen. This placed the residents at risk of not receiving adequate nutrition.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 31 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information through Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) as required. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for unidentified and ongoing inadequate nurse staffing.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff person designated as the Infection Preventionist (IP) who was responsible for the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) completed the specialized training in infection prevention and control. This placed the 31 residents in the facility at risk for lack of identification and treatment of infections.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for immunizations 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 interview, the facility failed to follow the latest guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) when they failed to offer and administer or obtain an informed declination, or a physician-documented contraindication for Resident (R)3, R6, R20, R21, and R22, pneumococcal PCV20 vaccination. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk of acquiring, spreading, and experiencing complications from pneumococcal disease.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents of which two were reviewed for pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction). Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pressure-reducing devices functioned correctly to prevent the worsening of pressure ulcer/injury for Resident (R) 20's coccyx (area at the base of the spine) wound. This placed the resident at risk for delayed healing or worsening of an existing pressure ulcer.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with six reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported that staff failed to follow the physician's orders to administer insulin (controls the amount of sugar in the blood by moving into cells) and medications to treat Parkinson's disease (a slowly progressive neurological disorder characterized by resting tremors, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity, and weakness). This placed the resident at risk for physical decline and an ineffective medication regimen.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with six reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to administer medication as ordered by the physician for one resident, Resident (R) 2, who received insulin (controls the amount of sugar in the blood by moving into the cells) and medications to treat Parkinson's disease (a slowly progressive neurological disorder characterized by resting tremors, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity, and weakness). This placed the resident at risk for unnecessary medication side effects and an ineffective medication regimen.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-infection control interventions designed to reduce transmission of resistant organisms which employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact care) were used for Resident (R) 20 who had an ongoing pressure ulcer and dressing change. The deficient practice placed the resident at risk of infectious disease processes.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 34 residents with three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction). Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent a Stage 3 (full-thickness pressure injury extending through the skin into the tissue below) pressure ulcer to Resident (R) 1's left buttock and then failed to provide routine treatment and nutritional interventions to promote healing of R1's pressure ulcer. This deficient practice placed R1 at risk for pressure ulcer development, pain, infection, and complications from delayed healing.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 34 residents with three residents reviewed for care and treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF-a condition with low heart output and the body becomes congested with fluid). Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 2 received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice related to CHF. This deficient practice placed R2 at risk for complications from congestive heart failure that included weight gain, edema (swelling), and difficulty breathing.
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 33. The sample included three residents reviewed for elopement (when a cognitively impaired resident leaves the facility without staff knowledge and supervision). Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure interventions used to prevent elopement (window alarms) were functional and tamper-resistant. The facility further failed to accurately assess and identify Resident (R)1's elopement risk. R1 was cognitively impaired, lived on a secured memory unit, and had a history of wandering; though, the latest elopement assessment performed on 01/08/24 indicated the resident had no wandering and was at low risk for elopement. On 01/24/24 at approximately 12:05 PM R1 moved her couch and a table away from her window, opened the window and screen, and exited the facility via the window. [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility identified a census of 31 residents with three residents reviewed for resident rights. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to protect Resident (R) 1's right to dignity. This deficient practice placed R1 at risk for impaired psychosocial wellbeing.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with four reviewed for falls. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement the care planned interventions for Resident (R) 3, who had multiple falls related to inappropriate footwear, with one fall resulting in rib fractures (broken bones). The facility further failed to identify and implement interventions to prevent falls for R5, who had multiple falls. This placed the resident at risk for further falls and avoidable injury.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census 30 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide Registered Nurse (RN) coverage eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week placing all resident who reside in the facility at risk of lack of assessments and inappropriate care.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to report to the state agency an unwitnessed fall which resulted in a fracture for Resident (R) 3, and an injury of unknown origin for R5, who had a laceration over her left eye. This placed the residents at risk for further injury and unidentified abuse or mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to investigate an injury of unknown origin for one sampled resident, Resident (R) 5, who had a laceration over her left eye. This placed the resident at risk for further injury and unidentified abuse or mistreatment. Findings Included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R5 had diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurological disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity, and weakness), epilepsy (brain disorder characterized by repeated seizures), and dementia without behavioral disturbance (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion). [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan with person-centered interventions for inappropriate sexual behavior for one sample resident, Resident (R) 2, and failed to revise and implement person- centered interventions to prevent falls for R3 and R5, who had multiple falls. This placed the resident at risk for uncommunicated and/or unmet care needs. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a discharge plan to support and accommodate Resident (R) 29's goal of returning to the community. This placed R29 at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a discharge summary for one resident reviewed for discharge that included a recapitulation (a concise summary of the resident's stay and course of treatment in the facility) of the resident's stay for Resident (R) 29. This placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with eight reviewed for behaviors. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to consistently monitor Resident (R) 3, who had a physician order for hourly suicide checks. This placed the resident at risk for self-injury and death.
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to identify and provide medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for three sampled residents, Resident (R) 2, who had inappropriate sexual behaviors; R3, who had stated she wanted to harm herself twice in the last six months; and R5, who had behaviors. This placed the residents at risk for further decline of their emotional and mental well-being
Inspectors wroteThe facility had a census of 30 residents. The sample included 13 residents with six reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)5's as needed (PRN) lorazepam (antianxiety medication) had a stop date as required, placing the resident at risk for adverse side effects related to psychotropic (altering mood and mind) medication use.
23 fire safety citations on file: 1 on September 18, 2024, 6 on March 28, 2023, 16 on September 8, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 26, 2024 | Fine | $11,213 |
| January 31, 2024 | Fine | $8,193 |
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) | 4.25 | 4.07 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.08 | 0.71 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.99 | 3.60 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.10 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.07 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 65.3% | 48.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 37.5% | 42.0% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.01 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 4.36 on weekdays and 3.99 on weekends, 8% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 15.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.67 in April to June 2025 to 4.25 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 | 4.25 | 1.08 | 4.36 | 3.99 | 15.0% | 0 of 90 | 29 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.09 | 0.86 | 4.17 | 3.89 | 15.7% | 0 of 92 | 30 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.10 | 0.79 | 4.24 | 3.73 | 11.7% | 0 of 92 | 30 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.67 | 0.83 | 4.82 | 4.29 | 13.5% | 0 of 91 | 31 |
| 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 | 30.5 | 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 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.0 | 4.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.5 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.0 | 16.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 29.6 | 18.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.7 | 22.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.4 | 11.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Westy Community Care Home'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. 19 eligible stays.
11.1% 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. 27 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. 20 eligible stays.
77.3% this home
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. 22 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 28 residents counted.
4.1% 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. 28 residents counted.
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: 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. 4 residents counted.
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: WESTY COMMUNITY CARE HOME INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rifford, Michelle | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 04/28/2021 |
| Rifford, Michelle | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/28/2021 | |
| Campbell, Michelle | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/19/2024 | |
| Ebert, Clara | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/19/2024 | |
| Fouts, Willa | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/19/2024 | |
| Frank, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/19/2024 | |
| Heptig, Robert | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/19/2024 | |
| Stalder, Robert | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/23/2020 | |
| Strifler, Sharon | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/19/2024 | |
| Rifford, Michelle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/12/2024 |
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.