Good Samaritan Society - Sherman County in Goodland, KS

Pros

• The staff are awesome, and the facility is clean and caring.
• The workers are good.
• It is the best nursing home in Goodland.
• The Goodland Good Samaritan Home is a great nursing facility.
• The dietary staff are courteous and cater to residents' needs.
• The activities are exciting for residents, and they never miss a bingo or movie.
• Residents feel like it is their home.

Cons

• They do not care for the elderly and are only after a check.
• All the comforts bought for her were stolen.
• The staff are rude and the administrator will threaten to call the police if someone criticizes resident treatment; they act like crazy people.
• They told the friend she could only visit once a week and stay for 15 minutes.
• There were outbreaks of whooping cough and soap residue in dishes when the dishwasher broke, forcing dishes to be washed by hand.
• The overnight staff is sometimes unresponsive to nurse alarms.
• The reviewer claims to have recordings of employees and intends to take the matter to the top at any cost.

Review

This community is best suited for families that prize a warm, home-like atmosphere with genuinely caring daytime staff, a solid activity calendar, and a skilled nursing capability for rehab and ongoing care. It works well for residents who want to feel connected, receive attentive dietary service, and participate in regular social and recreational programming. If a resident values personal attention, consistent kindness from caregivers, and a setting that feels like a real home, this Good Samaritan in Goodland can be a good fit.

Pros are clear enough to matter in daily life. The facility is noted for clean surroundings and a team that genuinely cares for residents, with many reviewers pointing to capable nursing and a compassionate, attentive staff. The dietary team is described as courteous and responsive to residents’ preferences, and activities, bingo, movies, and other events, are a regular, welcome part of each day. In the eyes of families, the environment often feels welcoming and homelike, and when staffing is adequate, residents can thrive without feeling rushed or neglected.

Yet the praise is tempered by persistent operational realities. Several reviewers highlight a smaller-than-ideal staffing footprint, which can translate into slower responses to alarms, occasional delays in assistance, and gaps in overnight coverage. There are serious concerns raised about leadership and administration, including perceptions of rude management and tense communication styles when concerns are raised. Additionally, there are troubling anecdotes about misappropriation concerns and unaddressed lapses in basic housekeeping and infection control, such as dishwashing issues during equipment downtime. Taken together, these issues can undermine confidence in day-to-day reliability and accountability.

Despite these drawbacks, the strongest positives do carry weight. The staff’s evident dedication often keeps the resident experience from deteriorating when times are tight, and the home-like culture plus engaging activities provide meaningful daily purpose. For families prioritizing dignity, social connection, and visible caregiver warmth, the pros can meaningfully offset some risk. The facility’s emphasis on resident-centred care, where residents feel at home and engaged, can translate into better mood, more consistent routines, and fewer behavioral or relational stressors for many residents, especially when staffing levels are at their best.

That said, this is exactly where careful selection matters. Families who require consistently high-staffing levels, rapid response times, and rigorous administrative accountability may want to consider alternatives. The combination of a smaller team and some reported administrative frictions raises legitimate concerns about reliability, incident resolution, and risk management. For residents with more complex or sensitive medical or safety needs, or for those who simply cannot tolerate occasional delays, exploring other options with stronger staffing guarantees and clearer, more collaborative leadership may be prudent.

When evaluating this community, approach it with a practical, plan-forward mindset. Visit in person at different times of day to observe how staff interact with residents and how quickly alarms or requests are acknowledged. Speak with current residents and family members about responsiveness, safety, and the consistency of meals and activities. Ask direct questions about staff-to-resident ratios, turnover, and how management handles complaints and any reported incidents. Review recent state inspection findings and ask for concrete examples of how past concerns have been addressed. If the posture of the team and the quality of life for residents align with expectations, this Good Samaritan can be a strong, livable option; if reliability and proactive leadership are non-negotiable, it may be wise to keep exploring other communities in the area.