Kansas ›Olathe

Evergreen Community of Johnson County

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

11875 S Sunset Drive, Suite 100, Olathe, KS 66061 (opens Google Maps) · Johnson County · (913) 477-8227· 44 certified beds · avg 77 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1996 · 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 →

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 25, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent May 1, 2024
$22,913
Fines, last 3 years
5.73
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 1, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: May 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 3, 2023 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Sep 29, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. G · Actual harm, isolated

    The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689

View all 24 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 25, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Feb 25, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 1, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
May 1, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint · F-0812
May 1, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0558
May 1, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0676
May 1, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint · F-0679
May 1, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0758
May 1, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · from a complaint · F-0849
Oct 3, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Sep 19, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedWhen a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · F-0661
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 19, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 2).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022140E
202311G ▲
202471G ▲
202620F

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

2 fines totaling $22,913, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
May 1, 2024Fine$12,854
May 1, 2024Payment Denial3 days from May 28, 2024
Oct 3, 2023Fine$10,059

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityKansas averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.73
Kansas average: 4.58
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.89
Kansas average: 0.81
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 5.10
Kansas average: 4.05
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityKansas avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.734.583.95top 14% in Kansas; top 6% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.890.810.69top 33% in Kansas; top 22% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing5.104.053.50top 16% in Kansas; top 6% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.590.490.48top 27% in Kansas; top 24% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)45.348.145.8top 45% in Kansas; bottom 49% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)28.642.042.9top 28% in Kansas; top 26% 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 5.26, RN 0.81, weekend 4.68.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.26 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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Evergreen Community of Johnson County. 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 →

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Evergreen Living Innovations INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2003
Amos, PatrickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Daugherty, DianneIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2018
Daugherty, DianneIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2025
Dupriest, JessicaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Dwyer, MarkIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Dwyer, MarkIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2025
Gallagher, LindaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE08/20/2020
Gallagher, LindaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2025
Gash, MarkIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2018
Gash, MarkIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2025
Gash, MaryIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/18/2018
Gash, MaryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2025
Holland, ChrisIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/19/2019
Holland, ChrisIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2025
Osborn, ChristopherIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2011
Parise, BrettIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Parise, BrettIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2025
Plowman, AndreaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Roberts, CharlaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/09/2023

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.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "How do you decide when a feeding tube is truly needed, and how do staff care for residents who have one?"
  • "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
  • "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
  • "Can I see this month's activities calendar, and what do you offer residents who can't leave their rooms?"
  • "What is your approach to psychiatric medications — how do you try non-drug options first and work to reduce doses over time?"
  • "How do you coordinate hospice care, and can residents stay here while receiving it?"

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 45% 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 63 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
The Healthcare Resort of Olathe2.9 miOlathe, KS★★☆☆☆1/5
Azria Health Olathe3.1 miOlathe, KS★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Good Samaritan-Olathe3.2 miOlathe, KS★★★☆☆2/5
Hoeger House3.3 miOlathe, KS★★★★★4/5
Aberdeen Village4.8 miOlathe, KS★★★★★4/5
Villa St Francis Catholic Care Center INC5.2 miOlathe, KS★★★★★3/5
Meadowbrook Rehabilitation Hospital6.2 miGardner, KS★☆☆☆☆1/5
Nottingham Health and Rehabilitation6.7 miOlathe, KS★★★★★5/5
The Plaza Health Services at Santa Marta7.1 miOlathe, KS★★★★★4/5
Colonial Village7.4 miOverland Park, KS★★☆☆☆2/5
Stratford Commons Rehab & Health Care Center8.0 miOverland Park, KS★★★☆☆3/5
Hillside Village of de Soto Rehabilitation and Nur8.4 miDe Soto, KS★★★★★4/5

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.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Olathe →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 175355.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details