904 East 68th Street, Kansas City, MO 64131 (opens Google Maps) · Jackson County · (816) 333-5485· 162 certified beds · avg 127 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 1982 · 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 →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: TUTERA SENIOR LIVING & HEALTH CARE (25 facilities, chain avg rating 2.0★)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Mar 27, 2025 · 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 (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Mar 24, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 18, 2026 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 2, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
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: Dec 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 2, 2025 · 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: Dec 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
The facility did not allow a resident's chosen representative — often a family member or someone with power of attorney — to exercise the resident's rights on their behalf. When a resident can't speak for themselves, their representative steps into that role. · from a complaint F-0551
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| May 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow a resident's chosen representative — often a family member or someone with power of attorney — to exercise the resident's rights on their behalf. When a resident can't speak for themselves, their representative steps into that role. · from a complaint · F-0551 |
| Mar 18, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Apr 8, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Dec 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly. · from a complaint · F-0624 |
| Jul 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jul 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Jul 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not notify the appropriate authorities when a resident with a mental disorder or intellectual disability had a significant change in condition. · F-0646 |
| Jul 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Jul 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | 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 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | 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 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Nov 23, 2021 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 10).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 11 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 13 | 3 | J ▲ |
| 2026 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
3 fines totaling $68,070.
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.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 2026 | Fine | $19,135 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | Fine | $34,034 |
| Feb 8, 2025 | Fine | $14,901 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Missouri avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.22 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 33% in Missouri; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.27 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 22% in Missouri; bottom 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.92 | 3.22 | 3.50 | bottom 39% in Missouri; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.19 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 23% in Missouri; bottom 10% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 49.0 | 56.0 | 45.8 | top 31% in Missouri; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 47.8 | 42.9 | top 1% in Missouri; top 1% 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 3.01, RN 0.25, weekend 2.74.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.01 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Highland Rehabilitation & Health Care Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloom, Randall | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/29/2018 |
| Brooks, Kiley | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/29/2018 |
| Brooks, Kiley | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/29/2018 |
All 3 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Tutera Senior Living & Health Care — 25 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 24 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rehab of Kansas City South | 1.5 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Gregory Ridge Health Care Center | 1.9 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Armour Oaks Senior Living Community | 1.9 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Hope Care Center | 1.9 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Parkway Health Care Center | 2.7 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Village at Mission | 2.9 mi | Prairie Village, KS | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Claridge Court | 3.2 mi | Prairie Village, KS | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Bishop Spencer Place, INC, the | 3.3 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Clara Manor Nursing Home | 4.0 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Summit, the | 4.0 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Kingswood Senior Living | 4.1 mi | Kansas City, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Aspen Health and Wellness | 4.6 mi | Overland Park, KS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Jackson, MO — 39 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265167.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details