Russell Regional Hospital LTCU
200 S Main Street, Russell, KS 67665 · Russell County · 23 certified beds · avg 17 residents/day · certified since Nov 5, 2002
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
0.00
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5
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 (33)
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 16, 2025 | 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. |
| Sep 16, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. |
| Sep 16, 2025 | 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. |
| Sep 16, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. |
| Sep 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. |
| Sep 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility hired someone with an official finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft against them. Facilities are not allowed to employ people with such findings. |
| Sep 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Sep 16, 2025 | 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. |
| Sep 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Sep 16, 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 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | 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 17, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | 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 17, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 17, 2024 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. |
| Jun 27, 2022 | 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. |
| Jun 27, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Jun 27, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure care was delivered by qualified people following each resident's written care plan — the individualized document that spells out exactly what care that resident is supposed to receive. |
| Jun 27, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. |
| Jun 27, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jun 27, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jun 27, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jun 27, 2022 | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (13 → 12).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 13 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 12 | 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) | 0.00 | 4.58 | 3.95 | — |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.69 | — |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 0.00 | 4.05 | 3.50 | — |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.00 | 0.49 | 0.48 | — |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 0.0 | 48.1 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 42.0 | 42.9 | — |
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 0.00, RN 0.00, weekend 0.00. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · 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 do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
- "How does your quality committee work, and can you share an example of a problem it identified and fixed?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Who is your infection preventionist, and what training do they have?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "How do you screen job applicants for past findings of abuse, neglect, or theft before hiring?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wheatland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 0.2 mi | Russell, KS | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 17E619.