Saint Lukes North Hospital
An acute care hospital in Kansas City, Missouri 64154
5830 N W Barry Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64154. (816) 891-6000.
Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare.
The short answer
Record last released by CMS on Oct 20, 2026.
- 5of 5 CMS’s overall rating
- 4of 5 patient survey rating
- 3 deficiencies cited in the last three years (needs attention)
- 171 beds
Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.
What these words mean4
- Star ratings
- CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System.
- Inspection (survey)
- A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
- Deficiency, citation, violation
- What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.
- Condition-level deficiency
- For hospices, home health agencies, hospitals and dialysis facilities, CMS writes deficiencies at two levels. Standard is the usual one; condition-level is the more serious, when a problem is serious enough that the provider doesn’t meet a whole condition of taking part in Medicare. Source: CMS, State Operations Manual.
What did inspectors find?
The last inspection on record was on Feb 27, 2025: a complaint inspection.
3 deficiencies cited in the last three years, 1 of them at condition level, the most serious.
1 deficiency at condition level, the more serious of CMS’s two levels
CMS, QCOR Hospital 2567 statements of deficiencies. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.
When those deficiencies happened
3 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Feb 2025. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Nov 5, 2026.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Dec | |||||||||||
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2026 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov |
Hover or focus a month to read it.
Hearth Record drew this from the dates and levels in the source’s own records.
Each deficiency, as cited
Rule titles as CMS’s inspectors cite them, set in sentence case.
CMS, QCOR Hospital 2567 statements of deficiencies. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.
Feb 27, 2025: complaint inspection3 deficiencies
-
Nursing Services
The inspectors’ words, 142 words
“NURSING SERVICES CFR(s): 482.23 The hospital must have an organized nursing service that provides 24-hour nursing services. The nursing services must be furnished or supervised by a registered nurse. This Condition is not met as evidenced by: 41474 Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review the hospital failed to have an effective skin injury prevention and wound treatment program, for one current patient (#31), and two discharged patients (#15 and #26), of five patients with wounds reviewed and to ensure vital sign (VS, measurements of the body’s most basic functions) monitoring was completed per hospital policy for one patient (#3) of three patients who received a blood transfusion (to administer blood into a vein). These failed practices resulted in a systemic failure and noncompliance with 42 CFR 482.23 Condition of Participation: Nursing Services. Please refer to A-395 and A-0410. 50151”
-
Rn Supervision Of Nursing Care
The inspectors’ words, 2,126 words
“RN SUPERVISION OF NURSING CARE CFR(s): 482.23(b)(3) A registered nurse must supervise and evaluate the nursing care for each patient. This Standard is not met as evidenced by: 41474 Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the hospital failed to have an effective skin injury prevention and wound treatment program, for one current patient (#31), and two discharged patients (#15 and #26), of five patients with wounds reviewed. These failures had the potential to lead to poor outcomes for patients with wounds and those at risk for skin breakdown. Findings included: Review of the hospital’s policy titled, “Skin Care- Skin Assessment for Adult,” dated 04/19/22, showed the following: - Upon admission, two Registered Nurses (RNs) perform a skin and skin risk assessment. - Skin integrity is assessed using the Braden Assessment (an assessment tool for predicting the risk of bed sores or pressure ulcers), on admission and then each shift thereafter. - Areas to assess for skin integrity include over bony prominences (a part of the body where a bone is close to the skin’s surface), on heels and lower extremities, the buttocks, skin folds, and under equipment, removeable devices and dressings. Identified areas of risk are to be documented in the medical record. - Nursing interventions are initiated based upon the patient scoring a one or two in any category of the Braden Assessment. There was no direction as to which interventions were initiated when patients score a one or two in any category of the Braden Assessment. Review of the hospital’s policy titled, “Wound Care Team Consultation Guidelines,” dated 12/07/20, showed nursing was to consult the Wound Care Team for confirmed pressure injuries (intact skin with an area of redness that does not go away when pressure is applied) over a bony prominence or under a medical device. Review of Patient #15’s medical record showed the following: - She was a 62-year-old female, admitted on 01/16/25, for difficulty breathing and COVID-19 (highly contagious, and sometimes fatal, virus). The patient had a past medical history of cerebral palsy (CP, caused by abnormal brain development before birth, is a group of disorders that affect a person’s ability to move and maintain balance and posture), contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of the muscles or other tissues, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) in all four extremities and was wheelchair bound. - Upon admission, nursing documented a Braden Assessment which indicated she was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. There were no wounds documented. - Nursing interventions for pressure injury (injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue, usually over a bony area) prevention included, every two hour turns and reducing linen layers. - Due to bed availability, she remained in the Emergency Department (ED) for almost two days. - On 01/18/25, she arrived on the inpatient unit. Nursing documentation showed during a skin assessment Patient #15 had a new pressure injury to the left heel. A pressure prevention dressing and pressure off-loading boot were applied to the left foot. Nursing consulted the wound care team at that time. Review of the hospital’s document titled, “Incident Report: 250194249,” dated 01/20/25, showed the following: - On 01/19/25, nursing staff identified a new pressure injury to Patient #15’s left heel. Upon discovery, a Wound Care Team consult was placed. - The Wound Care Team RN assessment indicated there was a pressure prevention dressing to the left heel and a pressure off-loading boot in place. - The new pressure injury was discussed at the hospital’s No-Harm meeting on 02/11/25. - The No-Harm meeting identified factors which contributed to Patient #15’s wound development. Factors included a failure to place a pressure prevention dressing or pressure off-loading boot upon admission, failure to utilize pillows or wedges to float the heels off the bed, a lack of every two hour turns and the patient remaining in the ED for two days. Review of Patient #26’s medical record showed the following: - She was a 96-year-old female, transferred to the ED on 11/12/24, for a left femur fracture (broken thigh bone) she sustained from a fall. - Nursing documentation indicated she had a skin tear to her left elbow, her left foot was swollen and her Braden Assessment indicated she was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. - Nursing interventions implemented included, every two hour turns, side to side turns, pressure prevention dressing to both heels, reduction of linen layers, and use of wedges or pillows for offloading. - On 11/13/24, she went to the Operating Room (OR) for an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF, surgery to fix severely broken bones) of her leg. - She developed several complications post-operatively which included developing blood clots in both lower extremities, severe bleeding related to the anticoagulant medication (drugs used to prevent blood clots) used to treat the blood clots, and requiring multiple blood transfusions (to administer blood into a vein). - On 11/16/24, a skin assessment indicated that Patient #26 developed a pressure injury to her right heel. A prevention dressing had been utilized but off-loading boots were not. A Wound Care Team consult was placed and off-loading boots were applied. - On 11/18/24, a virtual Wound Care Team visit recommended the right heel wound be cleansed daily with soap and water. - On 11/24/24, a pressure injury to her left heel was identified and the pressure injury to the right heel, had progressed from a Stage 2 pressure injury (a shallow opening in the skin with red or pink tissue or may present as a fluid filled blister) to a deep tissue pressure injury (DTI, intact or non-intact skin that has red, maroon or purple discoloration that does not go away if pressure is applied. Skin in this area may feel soft, firm or mushy and underlying damage is usually present). No prevention dressings were in place to either heel and the off-loading boots were in the room but not on the patient. An in-person Wound Care Team consult was initiated. Review of the hospital’s document titled, “Incident Report: 240190905,” dated 11/18/24, showed the following: - Patient #26 developed a Stage 2 pressure injury to her right heel, which was not present on admission. - On 12/02/24, unit staff who cared for Patient #26 received education in the form of flyers related to pressure injury prevention and pressure injury education was added to the unit’s huddle board. - On 12/11/24, hospital acquired pressure injuries (HAPI) were discussed at the unit’s staff, and the unit’s stock of preventative dressings and off-loading boots for the heels was increased. Unit leadership began focused rounds on patients identified as being at high risk for pressure injuries. Review of the hospital’s document titled, “Incident Report: 240191259,” dated 11/25/24, showed the following: - On 11/24/24, nursing identified that Patient #26 had developed a HAPI to her left heel and the Stage 2 pressure injury to her right heel, had progressed to a DTI. - No prevention dressings or pressure off-loading boots had been applied to either heel. There was one off-loading boot in the room, sitting on a shelf at the bedside. - Action items which included, education for staff who cared for Patient #26, posting pressure injury prevention flyers, adding pressure injury prevention information to the unit’s huddle board and plans to discuss Patient #26’s injuries at the unit’s next staff meeting. Review of Patient #31’s medical record showed the following: - She was a 66-year-old female, transferred from an acute care hospital on 02/12/25, for respiratory failure (respiratory failure (condition in which not enough oxygen passes from the lungs into the blood). - Upon her admission she was placed in the intensive care unit (ICU, a unit where critically ill patients are cared for) and had a Stage 3 pressure injury (a deep opening in the skin that varies in depth based on location, fatty tissue may be visible, but no bone or muscle are exposed) on her left heel. - Recommendations for wound care included two hour turns, reduction of linen layers, wedges or pillows for offloading, side to side turns, a pressure prevention dressing and off-loading waffle boots to prevent pressure to the right heel, a nutrition consult and dressing changes to the left heel on Monday and Thursdays. - On 02/20/25, nursing documentation, during a wound re-check, indicated Patient #31 had a new pressure wound on her right heel. A prevention dressing was in-use on the right heel but her off-loading boots were at the bedside and not on her. Observation on 02/26/25 at 10:40 AM, in the ICU, showed Patient # 31 had a wound to the outside part of the right heel. The wound was a small, elongated area with redness that did not go away when pressure was applied. During an interview on 02/24/25 at 2:30 PM, Staff N, Nurse Manager, stated that all patients had a skin assessment performed by two RNs upon admission to the hospital or unit. Patients with a Braden Score of less than 18, were considered as being at high risk for developing pressure injuries. Those patients would have pressure preventative interventions placed which included, every two hour turns, off-loading boots for the heels, and preventative dressings over bony prominences (a part of the body where a bone is close to the skin’s surface). During an interview on 02/24/25 at 3:10 PM, Staff P, Nurse Manager, stated that every ICU patient was turned or offered to turn, every two hours. To prevent pressure injuries to the heels, pressure off-loading boots were used. The patient’s heels would also be elevated using pillows or wedges. During an interview on 02/26/25 at 12:40 PM, Staff FF, RN, stated that she was the charge nurse on the floor, the night Patient #15 was transferred from the ED. The patient arrived to the unit only wearing a sock and pressure to the heels was not off-loaded in anyway. When the wound on her left heel was identified, a prevention dressing and a pressure off-loading boot were applied to the left heel. She photographed the wound and placed a Wound Care Team consult. She indicated Patient #15’s pressure injury was missed due to her being held in the ED for two days. During an interview on 02/26/25 at 2:30 PM, Staff TT, Nurse Manager, stated that when skin assessments showed a patient met criteria for a Wound Care Team consult, the nurses who performed the skin assessment were responsible for placing the consult. After Patient #26 developed a pressure injury, she provided education to the unit’s staff on pressure injury prevention in 12/2024. Education topics included, when to consult the Wound Care team, using pressure prevention dressings and pressure off-loading boots to the heels, every two hour turns and using pillows or wedges to off-load pressure from bony prominences. The unit also added charge nurse rounding on patients whose Braden Assessment indicated they were at risk for developing pressure injuries. During rounding, Charge nurses ensured pressure injury prevention interventions were initiated appropriately for at risk patients. For Patient #15 may have had the pressure injury when she was admitted, but it fell through the cracks since she was held in the ED for so long. Once Patient #15 arrived on the inpatient unit, nursing staff initiated all appropriate interventions based on what Patient #15’s skin assessment showed. During an interview on 02/26/25 at 3:00 PM, Staff T, RN, stated that there were orders in place for prevention of pressure wounds for Patient #31. Off-loading boots were not being placed on the patient and were found in their packaging, unopened beside her bed. The bedside nurses were responsible for performing a thorough skin assessment, photographing wounds and placing a Wound Care Team consult. When consulted, patients were triaged (process of determining the priority of a patient’s treatment based on the severity of their condition) by the virtual wound care team RN. The virtual wound care team RN assessed the photos placed in the chart, made recommendations and entered orders for management. Staff T saw patients in-person, when it was determined a patient had wounds that required hands-on care. For the in-person consult, the Wound Care Team RN was only expected to provide focused assessments and management for the wounds they were consulted on. During an in-person consult a full skin assessment was performed, along with a review of the patient’s medical record to ensure all the appropriate interventions were initiated. After Patient #15’s pressure injury, education was provided to staff who cared for patients being held in the ED due to bed capacity. Education included skin assessments, pressure injury prevention interventions and Wound Care Team consults. Patient #31’s pressure wound could have been prevented. Staff T stated, “why is this what it takes to get staff to use preventative measures.” 50151”
-
Blood Transfusions And Iv Medications
The inspectors’ words, 305 words
“BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS AND IV MEDICATIONS CFR(s): Blood transfusions and intravenous medications must be administered in accordance with State law and approved medical staff policies and procedures. This Standard is not met as evidenced by: 50151 Based on interview, record review and policy review, the hospital failed to ensure vital sign (VS, measurements of the body’s most basic functions) monitoring was completed per hospital policy for one discharged patient (#3) of three patients who received a blood transfusion (to administer blood into a vein) reviewed. These failures had the potential to negatively affect all patients who received blood transfusions at the hospital. . Findings included: Review of the hospital’s policy titled, “Blood Administration (Not Including Neonates),” dated 09/21/23, showed VS were to be recorded no more than 30 minutes prior to the transfusion, within 15 to 30 minutes after the transfusion started, and within 30 minutes of the completion of the transfusion. VS to be obtained included, blood pressure (BP), heart rate (the number of times the heart beats within a certain time period), respiratory rate (RR), and temperature, for all patient populations. Review of Patient #3’s medical record showed the following: - On 02/10/25 at 6:42 PM, nursing obtained pre-transfusion VS. VS obtained included, temperature, RR, and pulse. No BP was documented. - At 6:44 PM, the blood transfusion was started. - At 8:32 PM, nursing obtained post-transfusion VS. VS obtained included, BP and temperature. No pulse or RR were obtained. During an interview on 02/27/25 at 11:00 AM, Staff C, Chief Nursing Officer (CNO), stated the nursing staff should reassess VS for blood transfusions per the “Blood Administration,” policy. They were expected to obtain BP, pulse, RR and temperature during blood transfusions, at intervals defined by the policy. Transfusion reactions were identified by changes in a patient’s VS when compared to their pre-transfusion VS.”
All 2 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2025 | Complaint inspection | 3 deficiencies cited |
| Feb 3, 2025 | Complaint inspection | No deficiencies cited |
How do patients fare?
- CMS’s overall CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System. for it is 5 of 5.
- Of the measures behind its CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System., CMS counts against the national value: mortality, 0 better and 0 worse of 6; safety of care, 1 better and 0 worse of 7; readmission, 1 better and 0 worse of 7.
- Patients rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s patient survey (1,032 surveys completed, Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025): 73% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 75% would definitely recommend it.
- Infections, compared by CMS with the national benchmark (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025): surgical site infections after colon surgery, no different than national benchmark; C. diff infections, better than the national benchmark.
- CMS’s patient safety composite for serious complications, PSI 90, Jul 1, 2022 to Jun 30, 2024: no different than the national value.
- Deaths within 30 days, as CMS gives them (Jul 1, 2022 to Jun 30, 2025): heart attack 10.2%, heart failure 10.9%, pneumonia 15.7%, COPD 13.6%, stroke 9.2%. CMS gives no comparison with the national rate for them in this release.
- Readmissions within 30 days, as CMS gives them (Jul 1, 2023 to Jun 30, 2025): heart attack 14.1%, heart failure 21.8%, pneumonia 17.9%, COPD 17.9%. CMS gives no comparison with the national rate for them in this release.
- After outpatient care, compared by CMS: unplanned hospital visits after a colonoscopy, no different than the national rate; unplanned hospital visits after outpatient surgery, no different than expected.
- Emergency department patients spent a median of 179 minutes there before leaving (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025), and 4% left before being seen.
- 67% of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock got the care CMS measures, SEP-1 (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025).
- Medicare’s spending per patient here is 1 times the national median (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024).
CMS, Hospital General Information, Patient survey (HCAHPS) - Hospital, Healthcare Associated Infections - Hospital, Timely and Effective Care - Hospital and Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary - Hospital. Released Aug 13, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, Complications and Deaths - Hospital and Unplanned Hospital Visits - Hospital. Released Sep 30, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall ratingCMS’s overall hospital quality star rating, 1 to 5 | 5 of 5 |
| Patient survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of the hospital’s patients (HCAHPS), 1 to 5 | 4 of 5 |
Is it certified, and in good standing?
- Medicare-certified acute care hospital since Jul 1, 1966.
- Ownership: voluntary non-profit - private.
- It is accredited by The Joint Commission, whose surveys stand in for the state’s routine inspections.
- Cited at For hospices, home health agencies, hospitals and dialysis facilities, CMS writes deficiencies at two levels. Standard is the usual one; condition-level is the more serious, when a problem is serious enough that the provider doesn’t meet a whole condition of taking part in Medicare. Source: CMS, State Operations Manual. in the last three years: it didn’t meet a whole condition of Medicare’s rules for hospitals.
- It has an inpatient rehabilitation unit of 16 beds, which CMS lists apart as a rehabilitation facility.
- Voluntary non-profit - Private.
CMS, Provider of Services File - Hospital & Non-Hospital Facilities. Released Oct 14, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, Hospital General Information. Released Aug 13, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR Hospital 2567 statements of deficiencies. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.
Has it been penalized?
- CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospitals.
- Not among the hospitals whose Medicare payments CMS cut under the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program for fiscal year 2026.
- 3 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
CMS, Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program. Released Aug 13, 2026. Updated yearly.
CMS, Provider of Services File - Hospital & Non-Hospital Facilities. Released Oct 14, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR Hospital 2567 statements of deficiencies. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.
What do patients say about their care?
- CMS doesn’t publish staffing levels for hospitals.
- In CMS’s patient survey, patients rate how well its nurses communicated 4 of 5.
- 95% of its health care workers got a flu shot (Oct 1, 2024 to Mar 31, 2025).
CMS, Patient survey (HCAHPS) - Hospital and Timely and Effective Care - Hospital. Released Aug 13, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Who owns it?
- Saint Lukes Health System Inc. owns 100% directly since Jun 1, 1996.
- 16 owners or officers are people: Allen Dillingham (corporate director); Daniel Clemens (corporate director); Mark Mchenry (corporate director); Nanette Johnston (corporate director); George Lakatos (corporate director); Jane Pansing Brown (corporate director); Robert Lock (corporate director); Darren Bass (corporate officer); Darren Bass (runs it (operational or managerial control)); Darren Hennen (corporate director); Jason Dilts (corporate director); Damara L Harper (corporate director, 0%); Damara L Harper (runs it (operational or managerial control), 0%); Julie Quirin (corporate officer); Kellen Mumm (corporate director); Lajuana Counts (corporate director).
- CMS’s Provider of Services file records 1 change of ownership, the latest on Jan 1, 1994.
- No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
- No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
CMS, Hospital All Owners and Hospital Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated monthly.
CMS, Provider of Services File - Hospital & Non-Hospital Facilities. Released Oct 14, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Organisation | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saint Lukes Health System Inc. | Owns 5% or more directly | 100% | Jun 1, 1996 |
| Bjc Health System | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Jan 1, 2024 |
How does it compare nearby?
- No other hospital CMS lists is in Platte County.
CMS, Hospital General Information. Released Aug 13, 2026. Updated quarterly.
What the record doesn’t say
- CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospitals, so none are shown. The one payment cut CMS publishes for each hospital, under its Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program, is shown where it applies.
- Only complaints that led to a citation appear; complaints that didn’t aren’t published.
- Most hospitals are accredited by a private organisation (The Joint Commission, DNV and others) whose routine inspections stand in for the state’s; those reports aren’t public, and QCOR holds only the state’s surveys: no inspection on record here doesn’t mean none took place.
- QCOR says its hospital inspection data are complete only through September 17, 2026, while it moves to a new system.
- CMS doesn’t publish staffing levels for hospitals.
- In its September 2026 release CMS gives no comparison with the national rate for death and readmission rates, though it gives the rates.
Sources
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospital General Information (xubh-q36u).
Released Aug 13, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Patient survey (HCAHPS) - Hospital.
Released Aug 13, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Healthcare Associated Infections - Hospital (77hc-ibv8).
Released Aug 13, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Complications and Deaths - Hospital (ynj2-r877).
Released Sep 30, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Unplanned Hospital Visits - Hospital (632h-zaca).
Released Sep 30, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Timely and Effective Care - Hospital (yv7e-xc69).
Released Aug 13, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary - Hospital (rrqw-56er).
Released Aug 13, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program (yq43-i98g).
Released Aug 13, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated yearly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Provider of Services File - Hospital & Non-Hospital Facilities (Hospital_and_other.DATA.Q3_2026.csv).
Released Oct 14, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, QCOR Hospital 2567 statements of deficiencies (Hospital_2567s_2010_to_2026YTD.xlsx).
Released Oct 20, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated monthly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospital All Owners (Hospital_All_Owners_2026.09.29.csv).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated monthly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospital Enrollments (Hospital_Enrollments_2026.09.29.csv).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated monthly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
If you believe something here is wrong, a correction starts with the agency whose record this copies: CMS. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare. If Hearth Record copied something wrongly, it will fix it and log the correction publicly, with its date: how corrections work.
This copy of the record was made on Nov 5, 2026.
From the hospital
The public record above comes first. Anything the hospital adds will appear here, below it, and say who wrote it.
Replies
None. Replies aren’t open yet. When they open, the hospital will be able to answer any finding for free, and the reply will show beside that finding, unedited and dated.
Paid listing
None. Paid listings aren’t open yet. When they open, anything paid for will say “Paid by the hospital”, and paying will never change a finding, a rating or the order of results.