Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Lakeview Village during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering triggered a WanderGuard alarm and exited through a stairwell. Staff responded to the alarm but did not immediately open the stairwell door to search, allowing the resident to leave the building and be found outside with injuries several minutes later. Staff interviews revealed confusion about alarm procedures, and the failure to provide adequate supervision and a thorough search led to the resident's elopement and injury.
The facility failed to store and prepare food items according to professional standards, risking foodborne illnesses. Observations revealed improperly stored and unlabeled food in freezers and refrigerators, and uncovered dishes in the clean dish storage area. Interviews with dietary staff indicated expectations for proper labeling and storage were not met, and facility policies were not adequately followed.
The facility failed to follow proper infection control standards, placing residents at risk for infectious diseases. Observations showed non-compliance with protocols, such as improper storage of nasal cannulas and catheter bags touching the floor. Staff did not consistently perform hand hygiene between glove changes during care procedures. Additionally, the facility lacked a comprehensive plan for Legionella prevention, as confirmed by staff interviews.
The facility failed to provide a system for residents to file grievances anonymously, as required by policy. An inspection revealed no labeled grievance boxes, and interviews with Resident Council members and staff indicated a lack of awareness and implementation of such a system. This deficiency placed residents at risk for decreased psychosocial well-being.
A facility failed to implement pressure-reducing interventions for a resident at risk for pressure ulcers. The resident, with multiple health conditions and severely impaired cognition, was observed without required heel protector boots in place, contrary to the care plan. Staff interviews confirmed the responsibility to ensure special equipment was used, but the necessary interventions were not implemented, risking skin breakdown.
A cognitively impaired resident with multiple medical conditions experienced numerous falls due to the facility's failure to implement appropriate, resident-centered interventions. Despite having a care plan with various measures, the interventions were not effectively tailored to the resident's needs, resulting in continued falls without injury. Staff interviews indicated that the interventions were not person-centered, and the facility's fall prevention protocol was not adequately followed.
The facility failed to provide adequate incontinence and catheter care for two residents, leading to a risk of UTIs. A resident with a history of UTIs received improper perineal care, with staff not performing hand hygiene between glove changes and using the same wipe multiple times. Another resident with a Foley catheter did not receive proper hand hygiene during a urinary leg bag change. These deficiencies in care practices increased the risk of infection for both residents.
A resident with pulmonary fibrosis and CHF had their nasal cannula improperly stored on the floor, contrary to facility policy requiring sanitary storage in a bag. This oversight increased the risk of respiratory infection, as confirmed by staff interviews.
A facility failed to document a risk assessment and obtain informed consent for the use of side rails for a resident with Alzheimer's and cognitive impairment. The resident's care plan included bed canes for assistance, but no safety assessment or consent was documented, placing the resident at risk for uninformed decisions and impaired safety.
The facility failed to document appropriate rationale and nonpharmacological intervention attempts for antipsychotic medication use in two residents with dementia. Despite policies requiring such documentation, records lacked physician-documented rationale and risk-benefit assessments. Observations and staff interviews indicated that dementia was not an appropriate indication for antipsychotic use, placing residents at risk for unnecessary medication and complications.
A facility failed to maintain consistent communication with a hospice provider for a resident receiving hospice services. The resident, with a history of cerebral atherosclerosis, kidney disease, dementia, and diabetes mellitus, required assistance with ADLs and mobility. The care plan lacked specific directions for collaboration with the hospice provider, and the EMR did not consistently document care collaboration from January to May 2024. This deficiency placed the resident at risk for delayed services, potentially affecting her well-being.
The facility failed to document consent or declination for the PCV20 vaccine for two residents, despite their history of refusing pneumococcal vaccinations. This lack of documentation was identified during a survey and placed the residents at increased risk for pneumonia-related complications. The facility's policy requires offering the vaccine and documenting the decision, but this was not adhered to for these residents.
Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision and Thorough Search Following WanderGuard Alert
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when staff failed to provide adequate supervision and a thorough search in response to a WanderGuard alert for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a high risk for elopement. The resident, who had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and a history of wandering, was wearing a WanderGuard bracelet and was known to be independent with ambulation but required assistance with activities of daily living. On the day of the incident, the resident triggered the WanderGuard alarm by exiting through a stairwell door, but staff did not immediately open the door to search the staircase where the alert sounded. Camera footage and staff interviews revealed that although staff responded to the alarm within 36 seconds, they did not check the stairwell immediately and instead began searching other areas. The resident was able to exit the building through the stairwell, walk around the sidewalk at the back of the facility, and was eventually found on the ground near the parking lot approximately five to six minutes later. The resident sustained visible injuries, including a forehead abrasion and right ankle swelling, and was transported to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. The facility's policy required prompt and thorough investigation when a resident could not be located, but staff actions did not align with this expectation. Staff interviews indicated confusion about the alarm system and the appropriate response, with some staff not understanding the alarm codes or the need to open the door to the stairwell immediately. The failure to provide adequate supervision and to implement a thorough search in response to the WanderGuard alert resulted in the resident's elopement and injury, constituting immediate jeopardy.
Improper Food Storage and Labeling in Facility Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards for food service safety, as observed during a survey. The kitchen inspection revealed multiple instances of improper food storage, including opened bags of frozen food items such as carrots, hash browns, and chicken wings that were not closed, labeled, or dated. Additionally, the walk-in freezer and refrigerator contained unlabeled and undated food items, including blueberries, macaroni and cheese, and various leftovers. The cooler designated for leftover food had several containers of mashed potatoes, gravy, and chili that were not labeled or dated. Furthermore, the clean dish storage area had bowls and ramekins that were not covered or inverted, and the dry storage area had an opened bag of pecans that was not dated or sealed. Interviews with dietary staff revealed that there was an expectation for all opened food items to be wrapped, labeled, and dated before storage, and for dishes to be stored covered or upside down. However, these practices were not consistently followed, as evidenced by the observations. The facility's policies on food storage and maintaining a sanitary food preparation area were not adequately implemented, as they directed that food should be dated, labeled, and tightly sealed, and that dishes should be stored in a manner to prevent contamination. The failure to comply with these standards placed residents at risk for foodborne illnesses.
Infection Control Deficiencies in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to proper infection control standards, which placed residents at risk for complications related to infectious diseases. Observations revealed several instances of non-compliance with infection control protocols. For example, a resident's nasal cannula was found lying directly on the floor next to their bed, and soiled linen was placed on the floor. Another resident's catheter tubing and drainage bag were observed touching the floor, and the drainage bag was improperly hung, allowing it to touch the floor. Further observations highlighted lapses in hand hygiene practices among staff. A licensed nurse failed to perform hand hygiene between glove changes while assisting a resident with a urinary leg bag change. Similarly, a certified nurse aide did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes during peri-care, using the same wipe multiple times and placing wipes on potentially contaminated surfaces. These actions were contrary to the facility's policies, which emphasized the importance of hand hygiene and using clean wipes for each swipe during peri-care. Additionally, the facility lacked a comprehensive plan or risk assessment for monitoring and preventing Legionella disease, a significant oversight given the vulnerability of the resident population. Interviews with staff, including the facility's infection preventionist and administrative staff, confirmed the absence of a facility-specific risk assessment for Legionella. The facility's policies on infection control, catheter care, and storage of respiratory equipment were not consistently followed, contributing to the identified deficiencies.
Failure to Implement Anonymous Grievance System
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a system that allows residents and their representatives to file grievances anonymously, which is a requirement to honor residents' rights. During an inspection, it was observed that the facility had a suggestion box located in a walkway area that required a door code to access, and there were no labeled grievance boxes available. Interviews with Resident Council members revealed that they were unaware of how to file a grievance or if there was a way to file one anonymously. They reported that they typically turned their complaints into Social Services or had family members contact Social Services on their behalf. Further interviews with facility staff, including Administrative Staff A and Activity Staff Z, confirmed the absence of a grievance box. Administrative Staff A stated that grievances were filed via email, phone calls, or through social services, and believed residents knew how to file grievances since the facility received them. However, Activity Staff Z, who was new to the facility, was unaware of any grievance box or a method for filing anonymous grievances. The facility's policy, revised in 2018, stated that residents have the right to file grievances anonymously, but this was not effectively implemented, placing all residents at risk for decreased psychosocial well-being.
Failure to Implement Pressure-Reducing Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff followed the intervention in place for pressure-reducing boots for Resident 14, who was at risk for pressure ulcer development due to mobility impairment and other health conditions. Resident 14's medical record documented diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, atrial fibrillation, anxiety, depressive disorder, hypertension, and dysphagia. The resident was assessed as having severely impaired cognition and was identified as at risk for pressure ulcers. The care plan required the use of pressure-reducing devices, a turning or repositioning program, and heel protector boots when in bed. However, during an observation, it was noted that Resident 14 was lying in bed with heels directly on the mattress, and the boots were not in place, contrary to the care plan. Interviews with facility staff, including a CNA and licensed nurse, revealed that all nursing staff were responsible for ensuring that residents' special equipment or devices were in place. The facility's policy on pressure injury prevention and management emphasized the importance of implementing interventions such as elevating the heels off the bed surface. Despite this, the facility did not implement the necessary pressure-reducing interventions for Resident 14's heels, placing the resident at risk for complications associated with skin breakdown.
Failure to Implement Resident-Centered Fall Prevention Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement appropriate, resident-centered interventions to prevent falls for a cognitively impaired resident, identified as R96. R96 had a history of multiple medical conditions, including cerebrovascular accident, vascular dementia, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and aphasia, which contributed to her severely impaired cognition and increased risk of falls. The resident's care plan documented various interventions, such as the use of nonskid footwear, a hi-low bed, perimeter mattress, and call lights, but these measures were not effectively tailored to her specific needs. Despite the interventions in place, R96 experienced numerous falls, both witnessed and unwitnessed, over several months. The falls were documented in nursing notes, with each incident followed by the addition of new interventions, such as adjusting the toileting schedule, providing printed worksheets, and encouraging participation in activities. However, these interventions were not sufficiently individualized or effective in preventing further falls, as evidenced by the continued occurrence of falls without injury. Interviews with facility staff, including a CNA, a licensed nurse, and an administrative nurse, revealed that the interventions were not person-centered and that the facility's fall prevention and management protocol was not adequately followed. The interdisciplinary team was responsible for developing a care plan with interventions to reduce the risk of falls, but the facility failed to identify and implement appropriate measures for R96, placing her at risk for additional falls and injuries.
Inadequate Incontinence and Catheter Care Leads to UTI Risk
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary care and services related to incontinence and catheter care for two residents, R33 and R415, placing them at risk for urinary tract infections (UTIs) and related complications. R33, who had a history of UTIs, was observed receiving inadequate perineal care. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes and used the same wipe multiple times during perineal care, contrary to the facility's policy. This improper technique could lead to contamination and increase the risk of infection for R33, who was frequently incontinent of urine and had a history of UTIs caused by bacteria such as E. coli and Enterococcus faecium. R415, who had a Foley catheter due to urinary retention, also received inadequate care. Licensed Nurse (LN) H failed to perform hand hygiene between glove changes while changing R415's urinary leg bag, which is a critical step in preventing infection. The facility's policy required catheter care to be provided daily and when there was a possibility of fecal incontinence, but LN H did not adhere to these guidelines. This oversight placed R415 at risk for catheter-related complications and further UTIs, especially since R415 was already being treated for a UTI. Interviews with staff, including CNA O, LN J, and Administrative Nurses D and E, revealed a lack of adherence to proper hand hygiene and infection control procedures. Despite the facility's policies and frequent hand hygiene education, staff did not consistently follow the required protocols, leading to the deficiencies observed in the care of R33 and R415. The facility's failure to ensure proper hand hygiene and perineal care practices contributed to the risk of UTIs and other complications for these residents.
Improper Storage of Oxygen Tubing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the proper storage of oxygen tubing for a resident, identified as R413, which led to a deficiency in respiratory care. R413's medical history included pulmonary fibrosis, a need for assistance with personal care, and congestive heart failure. The resident's care plan required monitoring for shortness of breath and administering medications as ordered. However, during an observation, it was noted that R413's nasal cannula was placed directly on the floor next to the resident's bed, which is against the facility's policy for storing oxygen equipment. Interviews with various nursing staff confirmed that oxygen equipment, such as nasal cannulas, should never be placed on the floor due to the risk of contamination and infection. The facility's policy, dated November 2021, stated that oxygen tubing should be stored in a bag when not in use. The failure to adhere to this policy placed R413 at an increased risk for respiratory infection and complications, as the unsanitary storage of the nasal cannula could lead to exposure and contamination.
Failure to Document Risk Assessment and Consent for Side Rails
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident, identified as R60, had a documented risk assessment and informed consent for the use of side rails. The resident's electronic medical record lacked evidence of a safety assessment for side rails prior to their installation. Additionally, there was no documentation indicating that the resident or their responsible party was informed of the risks and benefits associated with the use of side rails. This oversight placed the resident at risk for uninformed decisions and impaired safety. R60 had a history of Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, and a previous non-injury fall. The resident's care plan included the use of bilateral bed canes to assist with transfers and repositioning in bed. Despite these documented needs, the facility did not conduct a proper assessment or obtain consent for the use of side rails, as required by their policy. Observations confirmed the presence of bed canes, and interviews with administrative staff revealed the absence of a safety assessment for R60.
Lack of Documentation for Antipsychotic Use in Dementia Patients
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate documentation and rationale for the use of antipsychotic medications for two residents, R71 and R96, both diagnosed with dementia. For R71, the facility's records lacked a physician-documented rationale that included multiple unsuccessful attempts at nonpharmacological interventions and an assessment of the risks versus benefits for the continued use of antipsychotic medication. Despite the facility's policy requiring such documentation, it was not provided upon request. Observations noted R71 sleeping in the common area, and interviews with staff revealed that dementia was not considered an appropriate indication for antipsychotic medication. Similarly, for R96, the facility's records did not contain a physician-documented rationale for the use of antipsychotic medication, nor did they document attempts at nonpharmacological interventions. R96 had a history of cerebrovascular accident, vascular dementia, and other health conditions, with a documented severely impaired cognition. The care plan for R96 included the use of psychotropic drugs and instructions for staff to monitor for adverse effects and attempt non-pharmaceutical approaches before administering medications. However, the necessary documentation to support the use of antipsychotic medication was missing. The facility's policy on monitoring residents on psychotropic drugs, revised in 2017, stated that psychotropic medications should only be administered when necessary to treat a specific, diagnosed, and documented condition, and when beneficial to the resident. The policy also emphasized the use of non-pharmacological approaches to minimize medication use. The lack of documentation and rationale for the use of antipsychotic medications for residents R71 and R96 placed them at risk for unnecessary medication and related complications.
Inadequate Communication with Hospice Provider
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a consistent communication process between the facility and the hospice provider for Resident 5, who was receiving hospice services. The deficiency was identified through observation, record review, and interviews. Resident 5 had a history of cerebral atherosclerosis, kidney disease, dementia, and diabetes mellitus, and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) and mobility. Despite receiving hospice services, the facility's care plan for Resident 5 lacked specific directions for collaboration with the hospice provider, including details on services, frequency of visits, medications, and equipment provided by hospice. The facility's electronic medical record (EMR) system did not consistently document the collaboration of care for Resident 5 from January 2024 through May 2024. Interviews with facility staff revealed that hospice providers had access to the EMR and were supposed to scan documentation after each visit, but this was not done consistently. The facility's Hospice Services policy required a written hospice agreement to include a communication process to ensure resident needs were met 24 hours a day. The failure to ensure proper collaboration and documentation placed Resident 5 at risk for delayed services, potentially affecting her mental and psychosocial well-being.
Failure to Document Pneumococcal Vaccine Consent or Declination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to obtain consent or declination for the Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) for two residents, identified as R53 and R71, during a review of their clinical records. The records lacked documentation indicating whether the vaccine was offered, declined, or previously administered. This oversight was identified during a survey that included a sample of 24 residents, with five specifically reviewed for immunizations. The absence of documentation placed these residents at an increased risk for complications related to pneumonia. During an interview, the facility's infection preventionist, Administrative Nurse E, acknowledged the lack of documentation for R53 and R71, despite their history of refusing pneumococcal vaccinations. The facility's policy, revised in December 2022, mandates offering the pneumococcal vaccine to all residents, with the decision documented as either consent or declination. However, the facility was unable to provide the necessary documentation for these two residents, indicating a failure to adhere to their own vaccination policy.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 569 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 19 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Lenexa
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Westchester Village Of Lenexa | 0.8 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Delmar Gardens Of Lenexa | 1.2 mi | — | 10 | 0 |
| Shawnee Gardens Healthcare & Rehab Center | 2.2 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Delmar Gardens Of Overland Park | 2.3 mi | — | 15 | 0 |
| Garden Terrace At Overland Park | 2.6 mi | — | 3 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Lakeview Village.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.