How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Brookdale Rosehill
12802 Johnson Drive, Shawnee, KS 66216 (opens Google Maps) · Johnson County · (913) 962-7600· 92 certified beds · avg 78 residents/day · certified since Jun 30, 2004 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.5★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 10, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.24
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 36 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. F-0880
The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. F-0558
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. F-0658
View all 36 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Dec 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Dec 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Dec 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Dec 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Jan 30, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jan 30, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · from a complaint · F-0756 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · F-0678 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep complete, dated laboratory records in residents' files. · F-0775 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Dec 19, 2023 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for residents with a colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy — surgical openings in the abdomen that let waste leave the body into a pouch. These require regular, skilled attention to stay clean and healthy. · F-0691 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (23 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 23
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 23 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 5 | 0 | F |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityKansas averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.24
Kansas average: 4.58
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.37
Kansas average: 0.81
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.93
Kansas average: 4.05
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Kansas avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.24 | 4.58 | 3.95 | bottom 41% in Kansas; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.37 | 0.81 | 0.69 | top 8% in Kansas; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.93 | 4.05 | 3.50 | top 49% in Kansas; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.19 | 0.49 | 0.48 | top 1% in Kansas; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 40.0 | 48.1 | 45.8 | top 30% in Kansas; top 36% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 41.4 | 42.0 | 42.9 | bottom 46% in Kansas; top 50% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.94, RN 1.28, weekend 3.66.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.94 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Brookdale Rosehill. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Retirement Corporation | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/10/2006 |
| Kussow, Dawn | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/30/2025 |
| White, Chadwick | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/30/2025 |
| Ally Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/09/2024 |
| Ally Financial INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/12/2025 |
| Arc Sweet Life Rosehill LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/10/2006 |
| Ib Finance Holding Company LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/12/2025 |
| Kalender-Rich, Jessica | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/22/2025 |
| Kalender-Rich, Jessica | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/26/2025 |
| Kussow, Dawn | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/22/2025 |
| La Marre, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/05/2024 |
| La Marre, Kevin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/22/2017 |
| La Marre, Kevin | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/26/2025 |
| LBMC PC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Munoz, Anna | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/05/2024 |
| Patchett, Mary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/09/2018 |
| Pu, Brett | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/22/2025 |
| Pu, Brett | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/26/2025 |
| Puhler, Justin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/22/2025 |
| Stengle, Nikolas | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/08/2025 |
Showing 20 of 24 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 4 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Brookdale Senior Living — 12 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Brookdale Carriage Club Providence — Charlotte, NC · overall 5/5
- Brookdale Westlake Village — Westlake, OH · overall 5/5
- Brookdale Lakeway SNF — Lakeway, TX · overall 2/5
- Brookdale Trinity Towers — Corpus Christi, TX · overall 5/5
- Brookdale Westlake Hills — Austin, TX · overall 2/5
- Brookdale University Park SNF (al) — Birmingham, AL · overall 1/5
- Brookdale Santa Catalina — Tucson, AZ · overall 4/5
- Bayshire Riverwalk Post-Acute — Bakersfield, CA · overall 1/5abuse
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you decide when a feeding tube is truly needed, and how do staff care for residents who have one?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 40% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 24 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 85 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sharon Lane Health and Rehabilitation | 1.6 mi | Shawnee, KS | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Merriam Gardens Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center | 1.9 mi | Merriam, KS | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Shawnee Gardens Healthcare & Rehab Center | 2.0 mi | Shawnee, KS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Garden Terrace at Overland Park | 3.0 mi | Overland Park, KS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Westchester Village of Lenexa | 3.3 mi | Lenexa, KS | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Shawnee Post Acute Rehabilitation Center | 3.4 mi | Overland Park, KS | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lakeview Village | 4.2 mi | Lenexa, KS | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Aspen Health and Wellness | 4.4 mi | Overland Park, KS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Delmar Gardens of Lenexa | 4.9 mi | Lenexa, KS | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Kaw River Care and Rehab | 5.0 mi | Edwardsville, KS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Parkway Operator LLC | 5.0 mi | Edwardsville, KS | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Edwardsville Care and Rehab | 5.0 mi | Edwardsville, KS | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Johnson, KS — 35 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Claridge Court — Prairie Village, KS · overall 5/5
- Colonial Village — Overland Park, KS · overall 2/5
- Delmar Gardens of Overland Park — Overland Park, KS · overall 3/5
- Evergreen Community of Johnson County — Olathe, KS · overall 5/5
- Good Samaritan-Olathe — Olathe, KS · overall 3/5
- Hillside Village of de Soto Rehabilitation and Nur — De Soto, KS · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 175478.