Kansas ›Topeka

Topeka Presbyterian Manor

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

4712 SW 6th Ave, Topeka, KS 66606 (opens Google Maps) · Shawnee County · (785) 272-6510· 68 certified beds · avg 60 residents/day · certified since Jul 15, 1994 · 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: PRESBYTERIAN MANORS OF MID-AMERICA (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 11, 2024
5
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 1, 2026
$56,260
Fines, last 3 years
5.12
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 1, 2026 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: May 16, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 12, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Sep 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 1, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Feb 15, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 27, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Dec 12, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 26, 2023 · F-0684

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Aug 14, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 33 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual harm, isolated

    The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint F-0686

  2. 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

  3. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. F-0679

View all 33 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 1, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686
Jun 17, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 11, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Dec 11, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Dec 11, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730
Dec 11, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Dec 11, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Dec 11, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not educate its staff on residents' rights and the facility's responsibilities toward residents. Staff can only respect rights they've been taught about. · F-0942
Dec 11, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not include required infection control training — with written standards, policies, and procedures — as part of its infection prevention program. · F-0945
Dec 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Dec 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Dec 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700
Dec 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0758
Dec 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883
Sep 12, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 1, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 27, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Nov 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · from a complaint · F-0744
Jul 26, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0758
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 30, 2021F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Dec 30, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Dec 30, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 30, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0758

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 14).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2024
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202140F
2023112G ▲
2024162G ▲
202510D
202611G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

4 fines totaling $56,260, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Apr 6, 2026Fine$17,155
Apr 6, 2026Payment Denial16 days from Apr 30, 2026
Sep 12, 2024Fine$12,048
Feb 1, 2024Fine$8,824
Nov 27, 2023Fine$18,233

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityKansas averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.12
Kansas average: 4.58
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.66
Kansas average: 0.81
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.68
Kansas average: 4.05
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityKansas avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.124.583.95top 28% in Kansas; top 11% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.660.810.69bottom 41% in Kansas; top 41% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.684.053.50top 23% in Kansas; top 9% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.320.490.48bottom 23% in Kansas; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)47.448.145.8top 50% in Kansas; bottom 43% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)42.942.042.9bottom 45% in Kansas; bottom 49% 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 4.54, RN 0.58, weekend 4.15.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.54 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Topeka Presbyterian Manor. 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 →

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Presbyterian Manors INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%03/30/1989
Bonney, RobertIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE04/23/2019
Brennecke, GaryIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2015
Cook, JamesIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2012
Goodwin, JohnIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2018
Harris, DanielIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2019
Hind, SherryIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/1989
McKell, ElizabethIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2012
Miller, JoanIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/01/1997
Morrison, AaronIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2015
Nelson, EleanorIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2010
Owens, MelanieIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/10/2017
Pilkinton, HeatherIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE10/12/2016
Presbyterian Manors of Mid-America INCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/30/1989
Shogren, BruceIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/05/1996
Taylor, WilliamIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2015

All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Presbyterian Manors of Mid-America — 13 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 12 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "Can I see this month's activities calendar, and what do you offer residents who can't leave their rooms?"
  • "How often do you evaluate your nurse aides and what ongoing training do they receive?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 47% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 16 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 (12 closest of 15 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Lexington Park Nursing & Post Acute Center0.9 miTopeka, KS★★★★★5/5
Brighton Place West1.4 miTopeka, KS★★☆☆☆2/5
The Healthcare Resort of Topeka1.5 miTopeka, KS★★★★★5/5
Plaza West Healthcare and Rehab1.7 miTopeka, KS★☆☆☆☆1/5
Tanglewood Nursing & Rehabilitation2.9 miTopeka, KS★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Rolling Hills Health Center3.2 miTopeka, KS★★☆☆☆2/5
Brewster Health Center4.0 miTopeka, KS★★★★★4/5
The Gardens at Aldersgate4.2 miTopeka, KS★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Brighton Place North4.5 miTopeka, KS★★★★☆3/5
Heritage Grove Estates4.6 miTopeka, KS★★★★☆4/5
Legacy on 10th Avenue5.0 miTopeka, KS★☆☆☆☆1/5
Providence Living Center5.1 miTopeka, KS★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Shawnee, KS — 15 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Topeka →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 175297.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details