How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Stoneybrook Retirement Community
2025 Little Kitten Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66503 (opens Google Maps) · Riley County · (785) 776-0065· 60 certified beds · avg 38 residents/day · certified since Oct 25, 1989 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: MIDWEST HEALTH (11 facilities, chain avg rating 3.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 14, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 5, 2023
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.49
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Apr 5, 2023 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Apr 5, 2023 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jan 31, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 32 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · from a complaint F-0727
The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint F-0628
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. F-0656
View all 32 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · from a complaint · F-0727 |
| May 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint · F-0628 |
| May 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| May 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| May 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| May 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| May 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| May 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| May 14, 2026 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint · F-0908 |
| Jun 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · from a complaint · F-0625 |
| Jun 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · from a complaint · F-0758 |
| Nov 14, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Nov 14, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Nov 14, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · from a complaint · F-0687 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · F-0745 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 20
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 20 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 9 | 0 | F |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityKansas averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.49
Kansas average: 4.58
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.63
Kansas average: 0.81
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.70
Kansas average: 4.05
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Kansas avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.49 | 4.58 | 3.95 | top 50% in Kansas; top 23% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.63 | 0.81 | 0.69 | bottom 37% in Kansas; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.70 | 4.05 | 3.50 | bottom 39% in Kansas; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 13% in Kansas; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 69.4 | 48.1 | 45.8 | bottom 8% in Kansas; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 71.4 | 42.0 | 42.9 | bottom 14% in Kansas; bottom 11% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.76, RN 0.53, weekend 3.10.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.76 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Stoneybrook Retirement Community. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eaton, Floyd | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/27/2003 |
| Floyd C Eaton III Trust 2012 | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/31/2013 |
| James Brett Klausman Trust 2012 | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/31/2013 |
| Jamie N Eaton Trust 2012 | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/31/2013 |
| Klaton Holdings Company INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/27/2003 |
| Klausman, James | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/27/2003 |
| Michael Graham Klausman Trust 2012 | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/31/2013 |
| Stoneybrook Nursing Facility INC. | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/27/2003 |
| Stoneybrook Nursing Facility Operations LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/27/2003 |
| Burke, Rebecca | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/27/2021 |
| Burke, Rebecca | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/17/2024 |
| Eaton, Floyd | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/27/2003 |
| Eaton, Floyd | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/07/2024 |
| Floyd C Eaton III Trust 2012 | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/17/2024 |
| James Brett Klausman Trust 2012 | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/17/2024 |
| Jamie N Eaton Trust 2012 | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/17/2024 |
| Klaton Holdings Company INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/17/2024 |
| Klausman, James | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/27/2003 |
| Klausman, James | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/07/2024 |
| Michael Graham Klausman Trust 2012 | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/17/2024 |
Showing 20 of 25 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 5 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Midwest Health — 11 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Twin Oaks Health and Rehab — Lansing, KS · overall 5/5
- Valley Health Care Center — Valley Falls, KS · overall 4/5
- Western Prairie Senior Living LLC — Ulysses, KS · overall 5/5
- Arrowhead Senior Living Community — Osage Beach, MO · overall 5/5
- Halstead Health and Rehabilitation Center — Halstead, KS · overall 5/5
- Holiday Resort of Salina — Salina, KS · overall 2/5
- Lexington Park Nursing & Post Acute Center — Topeka, KS · overall 5/5
- Pioneer Ridge Retirement Community — Lawrence, KS · overall 1/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 10 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Kansas midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 69% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 25 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Via Christi Village Manhattan, INC | 1.4 mi | Manhattan, KS | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Meadowlark Hills | 2.9 mi | Manhattan, KS | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Leonardville Nursing Home | 16.6 mi | Leonardville, KS | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Good Samaritan - Wamego | 16.7 mi | Wamego, KS | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Westy Community Care Home | 16.8 mi | Westmoreland, KS | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Tallgrass Healthcare Campus | 17.8 mi | Junction City, KS | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 175191.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).