Lawrence Presbyterian Manor
Lawrence, Kansas · CCN 175305
9 surveys since 2011, and no finding has been recorded at harm level.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 40
- Surveys
- 9
- Harm or worse
- 0
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
No finding on record has been cited at harm level or above.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 40
- Ownership
- Non profit - Corporation
- Chain
- PRESBYTERIAN MANORS OF MID-AMERICA
- County
- Douglas
- Medicare-certified since
- 1994
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 3
- Health inspection
- 3
- Staffing
- 4
- Quality measures
- 4
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=15, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Feb 18, 2026
264 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 5.83 | 4.29 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 1.17 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 53.7% | 43.9% |
As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.
Enforcement
No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.
Severity of recent findings
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D960.0% | E16.7% | F426.7% |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C16.7% |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at Lawrence Presbyterian Manor, in the surveyor’s own words.
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF812Feb 18, 2026
The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, distribute, and serve food by professional standards for food service safety in the facility's kitchen, kitchenette, and one of two dining rooms. Findings included:- On 02/16/26 at 01:30 PM, observation in the kitchen revealed a silver one-door refrigerator contained an unlabeled, undated container with two fish filets. On 02/01/26 at 01:40 PM, Dietary Staff (DS) DD verified the above finding and stated staff should label and date food items before placing them in the refrigerator. DS DD discarded the fish filets in a trash can. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF880Feb 18, 2026
The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections when staff failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-infection control interventions designed to reduce transmission of resistant organisms, which employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact care)when providing care for Resident (R) 5 and R6. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF881Feb 18, 2026
The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to utilize an antibiotic stewardship program that included tracking, monitoring, and attempts to decrease the use of unnecessary antibiotics (a class of medications used to treat infections). Findings included: - R6's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R6 received an antibiotic (a class of medications used to treat infections). R6's Urinary Incontinence Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 02/06/25, documented R6 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living and toileting hygiene. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF730May 8, 2024
The facility identified a census of 35 residents. The sample included 12 residents and five Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) reviewed for performance evaluations and the associated in-service training. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure two of the five CNA staff reviewed had the required yearly performance evaluations completed. This placed the residents at risk for inadequate care. Findings included: - A review of the facility's staffing list revealed the following CNAs were employed with the facility for more than 12 months: CNA N, hired on 01/10/14 had no yearly performance evaluations upon request. CNA M, hired on 05/26/22 had no yearly performance evaluations upon request. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF565Feb 18, 2026
The facility had a census of 37 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to resolve recurring issues reported by the Resident Council. Findings included:- A review of the facility's Resident Council minutes from 01/2025 to 02/2026 indicated the council had recurring concerns related to call light response times, long waits from posted mealtime, and hot menu items that were served cold. The Resident Council Minutes for 01/2025 noted that the previous discussion of dining service was slow. The Resident Council Minutes for 02/2025 noted the bacon had improved, and the upcoming updated call light system and security cameras would be done before carpet replacement in 2025. […]
Read 20 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 20 of 40 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Feb 18, 2026Standard and complaint6 findings
- May 8, 2024Standard7 findings
- Nov 2, 2022Standard2 findings
- Oct 29, 2019Standard5 findings
- Sep 27, 2018Standard4 findings
- Apr 12, 2017Standard3 findings
- Mar 28, 2014Standard7 findings
- Dec 12, 2012—3 findings
Show the 1 earlier survey
- Sep 28, 2011—3 findings
Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.
Comparable facilities
The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction