MissouriKansas City

Tiffany Springs Rehabilitation & Health Care Cente

9191 N Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64154 · Platte County · 120 certified beds · avg 113 residents/day · certified since Oct 16, 2017

Part of chain: TUTERA SENIOR LIVING & HEALTH CARE (25 facilities, chain avg rating 2.0★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$48,152
Fines, last 3 years
3.52
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: 3/5

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, one-off · Jun 17, 2024 · F-0678 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.

Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Jul 10, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 26, 2026 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint

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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Mar 16, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Dec 31, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jan 31, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (44)

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
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Feb 26, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jan 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time.
Jan 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs.
Jan 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not properly notify residents about the balance of money it holds for them, or failed to return those funds when a resident was discharged, evicted, or died.
Jan 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jan 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jan 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Jan 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 23, 2026D · 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.
Jan 23, 2026D · 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.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint
Dec 31, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · from a complaint
Oct 4, 2024F · 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.
Oct 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Oct 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Oct 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 4, 2024D · 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.
Oct 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Oct 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them.
Oct 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Oct 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Aug 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint
Jun 17, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint
Feb 13, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint
Feb 13, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve meals and snacks at times that fit residents' needs, preferences, and requests, or did not offer nourishing alternatives for residents who want to eat outside scheduled meal times.
Aug 18, 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.
Aug 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (11 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023140E
2024172J ▲
202510D
2026121G ▲

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)

2 fines totaling $48,152.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jan 23, 2026Fine$22,080
Jun 17, 2024Fine$26,072

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

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.523.663.95bottom 46% in Missouri; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.370.490.69bottom 40% in Missouri; bottom 18% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.073.223.50bottom 45% in Missouri; bottom 35% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.230.330.48bottom 37% in Missouri; bottom 17% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)47.056.045.8top 26% in Missouri; bottom 44% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)54.547.842.9bottom 42% in Missouri; bottom 29% 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 3.73, RN 0.39, weekend 3.27. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Tutera Group, INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest5%10/13/2016
Bloom, RandallIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/13/2016
Brooks, KileyIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2013
Brooks, KileyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/13/2016
Tutera, JosephIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/13/2016
Walnut Creek Management Company LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/13/2016

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
New Mark Rehab and Healthcare Center4.6 miKansas City, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Pinnacle Point Wellness & Rehabilitation6.0 miRiverside, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Linden Woods Village6.0 miGladstone, MO★★★★☆3/5
McCrite Plaza at Briarcliff Skilled Facility7.1 miKansas City, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
Ignite Medical Resort Kansas City, LLC8.0 miKansas City, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Life Care Center of Kansas City8.7 miKansas City, KS★★★☆☆2/5
Northland Rehabilitation & Health Care Center9.2 miKansas City, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Pleasant Valley Manor Care Center9.5 miLiberty, MO★★★★☆4/5
Willow Point Rehabilitation and Nursing Center9.8 miKansas City, KS★☆☆☆☆1/5
Aspire Senior Living Platte City10.5 miPlatte City, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Kansas City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265863.