Sutton Community Home, Inc.
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Sutton Community Home, Inc. has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good facility, solid but not exceptional. It ranks #63 out of 177 in Nebraska, placing it in the top half of nursing homes in the state, and is the second-best option in Clay County. The facility's trend is stable, maintaining the same number of issues over the past two years, with 15 concerns identified, though none were life-threatening. Staffing is a strong point, earning a perfect 5/5 stars and a turnover rate of 46%, which is slightly better than the state average. However, there have been some serious concerns, including failing to ensure proper food storage and hand hygiene during meal service, which could pose potential risks to residents.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Nebraska
- #63/177
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Nebraska facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Nebraska. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent 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
Near Nebraska avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
4 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 12-006.09(I)
Based on record reviews, interviews, and observations the facility failed to develop, evaluate, and monitor interventions to prevent further elopement for 2 res...
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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H)
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident 12) of 5 sampled residents were monitored to promote or maintain 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** Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.11(E)
Based on observation, record review, and interview; the facility failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Licensure Reference Number 175NAC 12-006.04 (A)(ii)
Based on record reviews and interviews, and observations; the facility and failed to ensure that pre-employment health history screenings were revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
4 deficiencies
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** LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D1c
Based on observations, record review and interview; the facility failed to provi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10
Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to follow practitioner orders related to administration of blood pressure (bp) medications in acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.12E1
Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to provide safe storage of medications for 1 (Resident 6) of 20 residents sampled....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
LICENSURE REFERENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12.006.17
Based on observation, record review and interview: the facility failed to prevent potential cross contamination between residents as hand hygiene was not c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2022
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** LICENSURE REFERRENCE NUMBER 12-006.09B
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the MDS (Minimum Data...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
LICENSURE REFERRENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D7b
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure causative factors were identified related to falls for Resident 15. The sample size...
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
LICENSURE REFERRENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications related to duplicate blood pressure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
LICENSURE REFERRENCE NUMBER 175 NAC 12-006.09D8b
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nutritional assessments were completed and recommendations communicated to staff fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
B.
A record review of orders for Resident 6 revealed the following orders for medications affecting mood and behavior:
-Olanzapine, an antipsychotic medication with an order date of 2/2/22
-Zoloft,...
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
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11E
Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility failed to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness by not ensureing that dishware...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.17
Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to pre...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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 Nebraska facilities.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Sutton Community Home, Inc.'s CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Sutton Community Home, Inc. an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Nebraska, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Sutton Community Home, Inc. Staffed?
CMS rates Sutton Community Home, Inc.'s staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Nebraska average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Sutton Community Home, Inc.?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at Sutton Community Home, Inc. during 2022 to 2024. These included: 15 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Sutton Community Home, Inc.?
Sutton Community Home, Inc. is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 31 certified beds and approximately 21 residents (about 68% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Sutton, Nebraska.
How Does Sutton Community Home, Inc. Compare to Other Nebraska Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Nebraska, Sutton Community Home, Inc.'s overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sutton Community Home, Inc.?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Sutton Community Home, Inc. Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Sutton Community Home, Inc. 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Nebraska. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Sutton Community Home, Inc. Stick Around?
Sutton Community Home, Inc. has a staff turnover rate of 46%, which is about average for Nebraska nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Sutton Community Home, Inc. Ever Fined?
Sutton Community Home, Inc. 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 Sutton Community Home, Inc. on Any Federal Watch List?
Sutton Community Home, Inc. 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.