Pioneer Lodge
300 W 3rd, Coldwater, KS 67029 · Comanche County · 25 certified beds · avg 23 residents/day · certified since Dec 18, 1992
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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 self-reported quality measures.
All citations in the current public record (23)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). |
| Sep 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. |
| Dec 14, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Dec 14, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. |
| Dec 14, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Dec 14, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. |
| Dec 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. |
| Dec 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 27, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 14).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 14 | 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)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Kansas avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.02 | 4.58 | 3.95 | bottom 34% in Kansas; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.10 | 0.81 | 0.69 | top 19% in Kansas; top 12% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.27 | 4.05 | 3.50 | bottom 23% in Kansas; bottom 45% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.56 | 0.49 | 0.48 | top 31% in Kansas; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 58.3 | 48.1 | 45.8 | bottom 22% in Kansas; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 42.0 | 42.9 | top 34% in Kansas; top 33% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.04, RN 0.83, weekend 2.47. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Who owns this facility
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What specific training do your nurse aides complete in dementia care and abuse prevention, and how often is it refreshed?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protection Valley Manor | 9.8 mi | Protection, KS | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 17E580.