SABETHA MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Sabetha Manor has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #220 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, placing it in the bottom half of the state, and #5 out of 5 in Nemaha County, indicating it is the lowest-ranked option available locally. Although the facility has shown improvement, reducing its issues from 10 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, it still faces concerns with staffing; it has a staffing rating of 4 out of 5 stars, but a high turnover of 61%, which is above the state average. There have been no fines issued, which is a positive sign, but the RN coverage is concerning, as it is less than 93% of other facilities in Kansas, affecting the quality of care residents receive. Specific incidents have raised alarms, including the failure to provide adequate RN coverage for eight consecutive hours daily and not employing a full-time certified dietary manager, which puts residents at risk for inadequate nutrition. Additionally, the facility has been cited for improper food storage practices, including expired food items, which could lead to foodborne illnesses. While there are strengths in staffing ratings, these weaknesses highlight significant areas that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Kansas
- #220/295
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Kansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Kansas average (2.9)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
15pts above Kansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
13 points above Kansas average of 48%
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility identified a census of 26 residents. The sample included four residents, with four residents reviewed for misappropriation of medications. Based on observations, record review, and interv...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 29 residents. The sample included three residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse between...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 25 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for hospitalization. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility had a census of 25 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one reviewed for hospitalization. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility had a census of 25 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to check the food temperatures of pureed (an eating ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 25 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide Registered Nurse (RN) coverage eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 25 residents. The sample included 12 residents and one kitchen. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to employ a full-time certified die...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 25 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standar...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 25 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate staffing information through Payroll Based Journaling...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 25 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to have the required members participate and attend Q...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 25 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility employed a designated staff ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to employ a full time certified dietary manager to pl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility had a census of 26 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to wear hair coverings in one of one kitchens, placing the residents at risk for food ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2021
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 19 residents. The sample included 11 residents with one resident sampled for communication r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 19 residents. The sample included 11 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - The Diagnoses tab in R5's electronic medical record (EMR) documented diagnoses of bipolar disorder (major mental illness that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -The Diagnoses tab in R5's electronic medical record (EMR) documented diagnoses of bipolar disorder (major mental illness that c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 19 residents, one medication cart, one treatment cart, and one medication storage room. Base...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
- • 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Sabetha Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SABETHA MANOR an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Kansas, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Sabetha Manor Staffed?
CMS rates SABETHA MANOR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 61%, which is 15 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Sabetha Manor?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at SABETHA MANOR during 2021 to 2025. These included: 18 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Sabetha Manor?
SABETHA MANOR is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by AMERICARE SENIOR LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 40 certified beds and approximately 25 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SABETHA, Kansas.
How Does Sabetha Manor Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, SABETHA MANOR's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (61%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sabetha Manor?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Sabetha Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SABETHA MANOR has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kansas. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Sabetha Manor Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SABETHA MANOR is high. At 61%, the facility is 15 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Sabetha Manor Ever Fined?
SABETHA MANOR has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Sabetha Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
SABETHA MANOR is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.