KansasJunction City

Tallgrass Healthcare Campus

1417 W Ash St, Junction City, KS 66441 · Geary County · 100 certified beds · avg 70 residents/day · certified since Mar 1, 1981

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

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.

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$13,995
Fines, last 3 years
3.58
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Nov 13, 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 (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Nov 14, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (20)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 30, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Nov 13, 2025▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe 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
Aug 6, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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).
Aug 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Aug 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Aug 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 20, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Nov 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Nov 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents.
May 4, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
May 4, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 4, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 4, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 4, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 9).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202250F
202340F
2025101K ▲
202610D

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)

1 fine totaling $13,995.

DateTypeAmount / length
Nov 13, 2025Fine$13,995

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

MeasureThis facilityKansas avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.584.583.95bottom 19% in Kansas; bottom 40% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.630.810.69bottom 36% in Kansas; top 44% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.214.053.50bottom 21% in Kansas; bottom 43% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.370.490.48bottom 36% in Kansas; bottom 46% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)49.348.145.8bottom 45% in Kansas; bottom 39% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)41.742.042.9bottom 46% in Kansas; top 50% 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 3.60, RN 0.63, weekend 3.23. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Partnership

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Brooks, PhilipIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest40%11/01/2007
Warren, BrianIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest60%11/01/2007
Brooks, PhilipIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2007
Brooks, PhilipIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2007
Shandy, TimothyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2007
Warren, BrianIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2007
Warren, BrianIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2007

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Chapman Valley Manor9.2 miChapman, KS★★★★☆4/5
Enterprise Estates Nuring Center16.1 miEnterprise, KS★★☆☆☆2/5
Wakefield Care and Rehab16.3 miWakefield, KS★★★★☆4/5
Stoneybrook Retirement Community17.8 miManhattan, KS★★★★☆4/5
Via Christi Village Manhattan, INC19.0 miManhattan, KS★★★☆☆2/5
Memorial Hospital LTCU (village Manor)19.9 miAbilene, KS★★★★☆4/5
Meadowlark Hills19.9 miManhattan, KS★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Junction City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 175126.