How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Pleasant View Home
108 N Walnut, Inman, KS 67546 (opens Google Maps) · Mcpherson County · (620) 585-6411· 122 certified beds · avg 72 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1997 · 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 →
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Oct 9, 2024
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 9, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
6.63
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: 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 9, 2024 · F-0686
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 9, 2024 · F-0686
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.
Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.
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: Oct 30, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 22 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 report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint F-0609
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
View all 22 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Apr 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 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0849 |
| Apr 26, 2023 | 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 |
| Apr 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0580 |
| Apr 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Apr 26, 2023 | 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. · F-0610 |
| Apr 26, 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 |
| Apr 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · F-0745 |
| Apr 26, 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 |
| Apr 26, 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 |
| Apr 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Oct 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Oct 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Oct 5, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0580 |
| Oct 5, 2021 | 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 (9 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 3 | 0 | D |
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: 6.63
Kansas average: 4.58
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.75
Kansas average: 0.81
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 5.66
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) | 6.63 | 4.58 | 3.95 | top 6% in Kansas; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.69 | top 45% in Kansas; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 5.66 | 4.05 | 3.50 | top 7% in Kansas; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.36 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 34% in Kansas; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 46.3 | 48.1 | 45.8 | top 47% in Kansas; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 66.7 | 42.0 | 42.9 | bottom 17% in Kansas; bottom 15% 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 5.39, RN 0.61, weekend 4.60.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.39 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pleasant View Home. 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 - Church related
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Franz, Brad | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2001 |
| Friesen, Shirley | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2009 |
| Keister, Samuel | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/17/2018 |
| Kroeker, Renetta | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/17/2016 |
| Moore, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2007 |
| Neufeld, Michelle | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/18/2021 |
| Neufeld, Michelle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/18/2021 |
| Prieb, Conrad | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/20/2014 |
| Regier, Loren | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/16/2017 |
| Reimer, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/26/1993 |
| Reimer, Kevin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/26/1993 |
| Reimer, Kevin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/23/1993 |
| Schmidt, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2009 |
All 13 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
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 do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
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 46% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 13 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 (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buhler Sunshine Home | 7.0 mi | Buhler, KS | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| The Cedars | 12.0 mi | McPherson, KS | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| McPherson Operator, LLC | 12.4 mi | McPherson, KS | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Good Samaritan - Hutchinson Village | 12.7 mi | Hutchinson, KS | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Diversicare of Hutchinson | 12.9 mi | Hutchinson, KS | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Hutchinson Operator, LLC | 13.1 mi | Hutchinson, KS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Wesley Towers INC | 13.4 mi | Hutchinson, KS | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Moundridge Manor | 13.8 mi | Moundridge, KS | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Pine Village | 14.0 mi | Moundridge, KS | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Mennonite Friendship Communities INC | 17.2 mi | South Hutchinson, KS | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Sandstone Heights | 17.6 mi | Little River, KS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Schowalter Villa | 19.8 mi | Hesston, KS | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Mcpherson, KS — 7 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Riverview Estates — Marquette, KS · overall 1/5abuse
- Bethany Home Association — Lindsborg, 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 175406.