DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Diversicare of Sedgwick has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the facility's operations and care quality. Ranking #245 out of 295 facilities in Kansas places it in the bottom half of state options, and it is the lowest-ranked facility in Harvey County. While the facility shows improvement, reducing issues from 16 in 2023 to 8 in 2025, it still has a concerning staffing turnover rate of 74%, much higher than the state average of 48%. Additionally, it has incurred $51,670 in fines, which is higher than 84% of Kansas facilities, raising red flags about compliance with care standards. On the positive side, the facility has an average rating for RN coverage, which helps ensure that some medical needs are effectively monitored. However, specific incidents of concern include a critical failure in managing a resident's diabetes, where staff did not respond appropriately to dangerously high blood sugar levels, and a serious issue where a resident did not receive necessary intravenous antibiotics, worsening their condition. These incidents highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the care provided at Diversicare of Sedgwick.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Kansas
- #245/295
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 74% turnover. Very high, 26 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $51,670 in fines. Lower than most Kansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 32 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Kansas average (2.9)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
27pts above Kansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
26 points above Kansas average of 48%
The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
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
Deficiency F0627
(Tag F0627)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included six residents with one resident reviewed for involuntary discharg...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2025
7 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents, which included three residents selected for closed record review. Based on interviews and record review the facility f...
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 F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the faci...
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
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one reviewed for enteral nutrition (provision of nutrients through the gastrointestinal tract when the resident ...
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 F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 42 residents. There were 15 residents in the sample, with one resident reviewed for trauma-inf...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observation, the facility failed to implement professional standards of care ...
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 F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Five Ceritifed Nurse Aide (CNA) were reviewed with three reviewed for annual performance evaluations. Based on interview and record review, the facility...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observation, the facility failed to ensure a safe environment in all areas of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
16 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents, with 16 sampled for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review t...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including three residents reviewed for bowel and bladd...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including three residents reviewed for respiratory car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for pain. Based on ob...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents selected for review, which included five residents reviewed for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including five residents reviewed for unnecessary medi...
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 reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents selected for review, which included five residents reviewed for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment for the residents residing i...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including four residents reviewed for Activities of Da...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident (R)24's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder chara...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility reported a census of 40 residents with five residents reviewed for immunizations. Based on interview and record review. The facility failed to offer residents COVID-19 vaccinations per th...
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient qualified nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing and rel...
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 F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to complete annual competency performance reviews at least once every 12 months for five of the...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store,...
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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an effective infection control program in the facility with the failure...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2022
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility census totaled 39 residents, with five residents reviewed for skin issues. Based on observation, interview, and rec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents, with 21 sampled and five residents for medication review as well as concerns of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 selected for review which included four residents reviewed for activities...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Based on interview and record r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 sampled including two residents reviewed for hydration. Based on intervie...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 selected for review, which included three residents sampled for respirato...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of the resident (R)29's Physician Orders, dated [DATE], revealed diagnoses which included shortness of breath, obstruct...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide maintenance services to ensure a safe and sanitary environment for re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $51,670 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 32 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $51,670 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Kansas. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Diversicare Of Sedgwick's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Diversicare Of Sedgwick Staffed?
CMS rates DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 74%, which is 27 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Diversicare Of Sedgwick?
State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 30 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Diversicare Of Sedgwick?
DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK 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 DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 62 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 71% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SEDGWICK, Kansas.
How Does Diversicare Of Sedgwick Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (74%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Diversicare Of Sedgwick?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Diversicare Of Sedgwick Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kansas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Diversicare Of Sedgwick Stick Around?
Staff turnover at DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK is high. At 74%, the facility is 27 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Diversicare Of Sedgwick Ever Fined?
DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK has been fined $51,670 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Kansas average of $33,596. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Diversicare Of Sedgwick on Any Federal Watch List?
DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK 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.