McDonald County Living Center
1000 Patterson Street, Anderson, MO 64831 · For profit - Corporation · 96 certified beds · (417) 845-3351 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 19.2% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.2% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.4% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.9% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.4% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.7% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.3% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 38.7% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 68.4% | 63.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.84 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.60 | 2.33 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 21% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 51.3%CMS range 39.0–67.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 6.1–15.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 96 beds and averages 58.3 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 38 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.15 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.29 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-08-08 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resisdents were appropriately asssesed to have medicaiton at bedside prior to providing bedside medications to residents when staff returned the resident's home medications to the resident prior to the resident exiting the facility for one resident (Resident #1), out of six sampled residents. The resident self-administered two medications and was found unresponsive. The facility census was 58. On 06/24/24, the Director of Nursing (DON) was notified of the Past Non-Compliance that occurred on 06/24/24. The DON notified the physician and the Administrator. The DON completed in-service education with all licensed nurses and certified medication technicians (CMT) regarding dispensing and releasing medications to residents. The noncompliance was corrected on 06/25/24. Review of the facility's policy titled Medication, Administration Guidelines, undated, showed the following: -It is the purpose of this facility that residents receive their medications…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-30 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services that ensured administration of all drugs to meet the needs of each resident when staff failed to have multiple medications available for administration for one resident (Resident #3) and failed to follow-up with the physician and pharmacy regarding the missed doses. The facility census was 56. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication, Administration Guidelines, undated, showed the following: -It is the purpose of the facility that residents receive their medications on a timely basis and in accordance with established policies; -The complete act of administration entails removing an individual dose from a previously dispensed, properly labeled container (including a unit dose container), verifying it with the physician's order, giving the individual dose to the proper resident, and promptly recording the information;-The same person preparing the doses for administration must administer the medications;-The person administering the drugs must chart the medications immediately…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-30 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents were free from significant medication errors when staff administered one resident's (Resident #2) insulin to another resident (Resident #1) who did not have orders for insulin and no diagnosis of diabetes. The facility census 56. On 06/25/25, during morning medication pass, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN A) discovered the medication. The LPN notified the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), physician, and family of the medication error. The LPN completed monitoring until the resident left for the hospital. The DON completed an investigation and in-service of all staff on 06/25/25. The facility corrected the non-compliance by 06/26/25. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication, Administration Guidelines, undated, showed the following:-The complete act of administration entails removing an individual dose from a previously dispensed, properly labeled container (including a unit dose container), verifying it with the physician's order, giving the individual dose to the proper resident, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-12-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was protected from possible contamination at all times when kitchen staff failed to air-dried bowls and pans prior to storage for use. This failure had the potential to increase the risk of food borne illness and had the potential to affect all 54 residents who resided in the facility and who received dietary services. Review of the facility's policy titled, Dishwashing and Storage, undated, showed the following: -Air-dry all items. Never use a towel to dry items. Make sure items are completely dry before stacking or storing them. Store them in a way that will protect them from contamination. 1. Observation and interview on 12/09/24, at 9:45 A.M., showed the following: -Five soup bowls stacked together that were still wet from washing and had not been allowed to fully air dry; -Cook (C) 1 said the bowls should be dry before they are stacked to help prevent contamination. Observation and interview on 12/09/24, at 9:54 A.M., showed the following: -Four pans, 6 inches by 10 inches by 6 inches deep,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed provide pressure ulcer prevention care per standards of practice when staff failed to ensure all staff were aware of a new order for placement of protective heel boots, that the intervention was consistently implemented, and that the new intervention was care planned for one of one sampled residents (Resident #23). Review of the facility's policy, Pressure Ulcer, Care and Prevention Of, undated, showed the purpose of the policy was to prevent and treat further breakdown of pressure sores. Treatment of pressure ulcers varies depending on the orders of the attending physician. The nurse was responsible for carrying out the treatment as ordered by the attending physician and for implementing measure to prevent pressure ulcers. Heel protectors was one of the listed interventions. Review of the facility's policy, Positioning the Resident, undated, showed the purpose of the policy was to relieve pressure and prevent skin breakdown, to relieve pain, and to promote proper body alignment. Staff to use protective…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a system to ensure consistent communication and collaboration of care occurred between the facility and hospice staff for one resident (Resident #39) of one resident reviewed for hospice services. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy related to coordination of hospice services. 1. Review of Resident #39's Face Sheet, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, showed the following: -admission date of 06/09/22; -readmission date of 08/05/22; -Diagnoses included heart failure, lymphedema (tissue swelling caused by an accumulation of protein-rich fluid that's usually drained through the body's lymphatic system), and palliative (comfort) care. Review of the resident's Minimum Date Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff), with a Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/11/24, located under the MDS tab of the EMR, showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the resident's current Care Plan, located in the EMR under the Care Plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-28 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to give written information to the resident and/or resident's representative of the facility's bed hold policy for four residents (Residents #28, #45, #29, and #62) who were transferred out to the hospital, out of a sample of 18 residents. The facility census was 71. The facility did not provide a written policy of the Bed Hold Policy with all transfers. 1. Review of Resident #28's face sheet (brief information sheet about the resident) showed the following information: -admitted on [DATE]; -Diagnoses included: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), pneumonia (lung inflammation caused by bacterial or viral infection, in which the air sacs fill with pus and may become solid), congestive heart failure (CHF - a condition in which the heart can't pump enough blood to the body's other organs), chronic kidney disease (CKD - kidneys are damaged and can't filter blood the way they…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an ongoing monitoring process to include accurate accountability of expired or unusable medications, including one over-the-counter medication for one resident (Resident #59), and including one over-the-counter supplement, and three topical ointments/creams, following standards of practice. The facility census was 69. Review showed no facility policy provided regarding expired medications. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance dated, August 2022, showed the following: -Every year, two million people end up in the hospital due to drug-related injuries; -This might include medication errors, adverse drug reactions, allergic reactions, or overdoses; -Safe and secure storage of prescription medicine can help avoid accidental injuries; -Check to see if any prescription medicines are expired, since taking expired medication may no longer be safe or effective; -Make sure prescription medicine is stored in the original packaging with the safety lock tightened and secured;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-04-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to keep food safe from potential contamination when food contact surfaces (dishes) were stacked wet instead of air dried, potentially causing a bacterial growth. The facility census was 69. Review of the 2013 Missouri Food Code showed the following information: -Physical facilities will ensure the rinsing of equipment and utensils after cleaning and sanitizing; -Food contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to the sight and touch; -After being cleaned and sanitized, equipment and utensils shall be air dried; -Utensils and other eating equipment shall be in a self-draining position that allows air drying. 1. Review of the facility policy, titled Nutrition and Dining Services Manual, May 2015, showed the following information: -After the first tray of dishes is washed, pull the rack out of the machine to air dry; -After washing silverware, allow to air dry; -Trays and plate covers should be taken from carts, rinsed, and stacked in dishwasher, and allowed to air dry. Observation on 4/24/23, at 10:40 A.M.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, facility failed to ensure staff completed hand hygiene during blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration for one resident (Resident #62), during and following incontinent care for one resident (Resident #9), and following toileting for one resident (Resident #33), out of a sample of 18 residents. The facility census was 69. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy specific to hand washing. 1. Review of Resident #62's face sheet (a document that gives a resident's information at a quick glance) showed the following: -admission date of 06/23/22; -Diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus (chronic condition that happens because of a problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel) without complications, aphasia (language disorder that results from damage to portions of the brain that are responsible for language) following cerebral infarction (stroke), and muscle weakness. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-28 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to keep the kitchen area safe from potential contamination when non-food contact surfaces, such as ceiling vents and air conditioning units, were found to have a dust/debris mixture with cobwebs. The facility census was 69. Review of the 2013 Missouri Food Code showed physical facilities shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them in sanitary condition. Review of the facility's cleaning schedule showed the following: -There are three separate cleaning schedules, one for the cooks, one for the dishwasher, and one for the dietary aide; -Each date had two separate cleaning duties assigned to every day; -The schedule did not address cleaning the areas observed with the dust/debris/cobweb mixture, such as the air conditioning unit and vent, the metal shelf, or the ceiling vents. Review of the facility policy, titled Work Spaces and Storage, dated 05/2015, showed the following: -Rinse shelves with a clean sponge or cloth; -Use appropriate strength solution for sanitizing; -Clean on a weekly basis, or more…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-28 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dignity of one resident (Resident #19) when staff did not place the catheter (tubing to drain the bladder) collection bag inside a dignity bag, out of a sample selection of 18 residents. The facility census was 69. The facility did not provide a policy regarding dignity. 1. Review of Resident #19's face sheet (gives basic resident profile information) showed the following: -admitted to the facility on [DATE]; -Diagnoses included left non-dominant side weakness and paralysis following a stroke, overactive bladder, urinary tract infection (UTI), urinary retention, and muscle weakness. Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated comprehensive assessment instrument, completed by facility staff), dated 03/03/23, showed the following: -Cognitively intact; -Required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, mobility using a wheelchair, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-28 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide privacy during toileting for one resident (Resident #33) out of a sample selection of 18 residents. The facility census was 69. The facility did not provide a policy regarding privacy. 1. Review of Resident #33's face sheet (brief resident information profile sheet) showed the following information: -admitted to the facility on [DATE]; -Diagnoses included bipolar disorder (mental health disorder causing mood swings), sepsis (infection in the blood), acute upper respiratory infection, cognitive communication deficit, anxiety, urinary tract infection (UTI) caused by enterococcus(bacteria), muscle weakness, and dementia. Review of the resident's 14-day admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated comprehensive assessment instrument, completed by facility staff, dated 03/02/23, showed the following: -Moderately impaired cognition skills for daily decision making; -Short and long term memory problem; -Mild depression;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-28 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors when staff failed to ensure two residents (Resident #62 and #18) had a meal intake within 30 minutes of insulin administration as recommended by the manufacturer, out of a sample of 18 residents. The facility census was 69. Review of the facility policy, titled Medication Administration, dated February 7, 2013, showed the following: -Medications are given to benefit a resident's health as ordered by the physician; -Bring cart to the resident room; -Explain to resident what you are going to do; -Read the label three times before administering the medication. First when comparing label to medication sheet. Second when setting up the medication. Third when preparing to administer medication to the resident; -Administer the medication; -Record the medication given on the medication sheet. Review of the facility policy, titled Injection (Subcutaneous (under the skin)), undated, showed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-04-28 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post daily nurse staffing information that included the total number of hours worked per shift in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. The facility census was 69. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy regarding nurse staff information posting. 1. Observation on 04/24/23, at 3:30 P.M., showed the nurse staffing information posted on the wall near the fire alarm panel at approximately 5 ½ feet height behind the nurses' station, not in a prominent location for residents and visitors. The posting did not include total hours worked. Observation on 04/25/23, at 10:00 A.M., showed the nurse staffing information posted on the wall near the fire alarm panel at approximately 5 ½ feet height behind the nurses' station, not in a prominent location for residents and visitors. The posting did not include total hours worked. Observation 04/26/23, at 11:45 A.M., showed the nurse staffing information posted on the wall near the fire alarm panel at approximately 5 ½ feet height behind the nurses'…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN — 56 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
The other 55 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 55; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LINCOLN, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 09/01/2016 |
| LINCOLN, JUDY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 09/01/2016 |
| LTC MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/05/2016 |
| DRAKE, TIMOTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/17/2021 |
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265447. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.