St Joe Manor
10 Lake Drive, Bonne Terre, MO 63628 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 155 certified beds · (573) 358-2800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (32) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (73%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 2 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 | 15.9% | 18.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.9% | 5.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 25.3% | 18.5% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 2.0% | 4.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.6% | 17.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 42.6% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.8% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.7% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.1% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.7% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 32.5% | 63.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.9% | 26.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.3% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.44 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.73 | 2.33 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
31.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 41.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 31 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 | 31.4%CMS range 21.0–43.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.2%CMS range 9.3–17.6 | 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 | 41.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 45.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 41.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.9% | 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 | 4.2% | 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 | 4.2% | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 5.6–13.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.40 | 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 155 beds and averages 148.4 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 2.73 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 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 2.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.91 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.44 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 73% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
32 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2026-05-20 · 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 store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 147.Review of the facility's policy titled, Code of Dress and Personal Appearance, dated 2011, showed:- All Dining Services employees will comply with printed and posted personal hygiene and sanitation practices of this facility;- Hairnets, hair restraints, and beard guards shall be worn.Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning Instructions, dated 2011, showed:- The range will be cleaned and sanitized after each use, spills and food particles will be wiped up as they occur;- Ice machine and equipment will be kept clean and sanitized, according to the manufacturer's procedures if available, wipe down exterior with detergent solution, clean underneath and around the machine;- Kitchen floors will be swept and cleaned after each meal. At least once a month, large appliances will be moved to clean behind 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 · F2026-05-20 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to demonstrate evidence of maintaining an ongoing effective, comprehensive, data-driven Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program that focuses on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility's census was 147.Review of the facility's policy titled, QAPI Program, revised February 2020, showed:- This facility shall develop, implement, and maintain an ongoing, facility-wide, data-driven QAPI program that is focused on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life for our residents;- The objectives of the QAPI program are to provide a means to measure current and potential indicators for outcomes of care and quality of life, provide a means to establish and implement performance improvement projects to correct identified negative or problematic indicators, reinforce and build upon effective systems and processes related to the delivery of quality care and services, and establish systems through which to monitor…
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 · D2026-05-20 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 treatment decisions, including hospice election and code status decisions, were made by the resident or a legally authorized representative. This failure affected one resident (Resident #7) out of 29 sampled residents. The facility census was 147.Review of the facility policy titled, Advanced Directives, revised September 2022, showed:- The resident has the right to formulate an advanced directive, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment, advanced directives are honored in accordance with state law and facility policy;- Prior to or upon admission of a resident, the social services director (SSD), or designee inquires of the resident, his/her family members, and/or his or her legal representative about the existence of any written, advanced directives; - If the resident is incapacitated and unable to receive information about his or her right to formulate an advanced directive, the information may be…
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 · D2026-05-20 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of a transfer to the hospital and failed to provide a copy of the bed-hold policy with the daily rate amount upon transfer to the hospital for six residents (Residents #1, #2, #4, #11, #114, and #123) out of 29 sampled residents. The facility's census was 147. Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Holds and Returns, revised October 2022, showed: - Residents and/or representatives are informed (in writing) of the facility and state (if applicable) bed-hold policies; - All residents/representatives are provided written information regarding the facility and state bed-hold policies, which address holding or reserving a resident's bed during periods of absence (hospitalization or therapeutic leave). Residents, regardless of payer source, are provided written notice about these policies at least twice: well in advance of any transfer (e.g., in the admission packet); and at the time of…
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 before2026-05-20 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 obtain urinary catheter (a sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) orders for one resident (Resident #15) out of three sampled residents with a urinary catheter and failed to follow physician's orders for one resident (Resident #13) out of 29 sampled residents. The facility census was 147. Review of the facility policy titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, revised August 2022, showed: - Empty the collection bag at least every eight hours; - Review and document the clinical indications for catheter use prior to inserting; - Nursing and the interdisciplinary team should assess and document the ongoing need for a catheter that is in place; - Remove the catheter as soon as it is no longer needed. The facility did not provide a policy regarding gastrostomy tube (G-tube - a thin flexible tube surgically inserted through the abdomen into the stomach to provide fluids, nutrition and medications) orders. 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record showed: - admission date of 02/13/20; - Diagnoses of multiple…
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 · D2026-05-20 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such 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 ensure communication forms that reflected ongoing coordination and collaboration between facility staff and the dialysis (a life-sustaining medical treatment that filters waste, toxins, and excess fluids from the blood when the kidneys have failed) staff were sent with two residents (Residents #11 and #62) out of two sampled dialysis residents on all dialysis days and failed to ensure one resident (Resident #11) had an order for dialysis. The facility's census was 147. Review of the facility's policy titled, Dialysis, dated 03/25/20, showed: - Effective immediately: Anyone going to dialysis will bring a dialysis communication form with them that has the most recent vital signs or order changes for the patient on it as well as any concerns you may have; - The sheet is to come back with the patient after dialysis, and it should have any concerns or instructions from the dialysis center; - Please remember to send this each time the patient goes to dialysis. Check it upon return for any orders or concerns and place on the…
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 · D2026-05-20 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
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 two of three sampled Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) received an annual performance review. The facility census was 147.Review of the facility's employee handbook, dated 12/08/23, showed:- Performance Improvement: The facility will make efforts to periodically review your work performance;- The performance improvement process will take place annually or as business needs dictate;- You may specifically request that your supervisor assist you in developing a performance improvement plan at any time.The facility did not provide a policy related to annual performance reviews.1. Review of CNA K's personnel file showed:- Hire date of 04/09/25;- No documentation of an annual performance review.2. Review of CNA L's personnel file showed:- Hire date of 05/08/25;- No documentation of an annual performance review.During an interview on 05/18/26 at 1:30 P.M., the Human Resources Director said the facility did not do performance reviews and if there was a write-up, then they would add those to their record.During an interview on…
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 before2026-05-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 follow enhanced barrier precautions (EBP - precautions for use during high-contact resident care activities for residents infected with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO - microorganisms that are resistant to one or more classes of antimicrobial agents) or any resident who has a chronic wound and/or indwelling medical device) for two residents (Residents #13 and Resident #83) out of two sampled residents. The facility failed to follow proper infection control practices during incontinent care for two residents (Residents #1 and #154) out of three sampled residents. The facility also failed to provide appropriate infection control measures during medication pass for three residents (Residents #11, #14, and #86) out of six sampled residents and glucometer (a machine used to check blood sugars) cleaning for two residents (Residents #11 and #86) out of three sampled residents who required glucose monitoring. The facility census was 147. Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions,…
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 before2026-05-20 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and side rails as part of a regular maintenance program for three residents (Residents #52, #96, and #154) out of 29 sampled residents with side rails. The facility's census was 147. Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Safety and Bed Rail, revised September 2025, showed: - The resident's sleeping environment is evaluated by the interdisciplinary team; - Consideration is given to the resident's safety. Medical conditions, comfort and freedom of movement, as well as input from the resident and family regarding previous sleeping habits and bed environment; - Bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails are checked for compatibility and size prior to use; - Bed dimensions are appropriate for the resident's size; - Regardless of mattress type, width, length, and/or depth, the bed frame, bed rail, and mattress will leave no gap wide enough to entrap a resident's head or body. Any gaps in the bed system are within safety dimensions established by the Food…
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 before2025-02-13 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of a transfer or discharge to a hospital, including the reasons for transfer for eleven residents (Resident #18, #25, #28, #34, #44, #49, #53, #81, #111, #126, and #131) out of 28 sampled residents and one resident (Resident #139) outside the sample. The facility's census was 139. Review of the facility's policy, Transfer or Discharge, Facility-Initiated, revised October 2022, showed: - Facility-initiated transfers and discharges, when necessary, must meet specific criteria and require resident/representative notification and orientation, and documentation as specified in this policy; - Each resident will be permitted to remain in the facility, and not be transferred or discharged unless the transfer or discharge is necessary for the resident's welfare and the resident's needs cannot be met in this facility; - The resident and representative are notified in writing of the following…
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.
Show the remaining 22 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-13 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify 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 provide written information to the resident and/or the resident's representative of the facility's bed hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for four residents (Resident #18, #34, #44, and #53) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility's census was 139. Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Holds and Returns, revised October 2022, showed: - Residents and/or representatives are informed (in writing) of the facility and state (if applicable) bed-hold policies; - All residents/representatives are provided written information regarding the facility and state bed-hold policies, which address holding or reserving a resident's bed during periods of absence (hospitalization or therapeutic leave). Residents, regardless of payer source, are provided written notice about these policies at least twice: well in advance of any transfer (e.g., in the admission packet); and at the time of transfer (or, if the transfer was an emergency, within 24…
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 before2025-02-13 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff) for two residents (Resident #41 and #131) out of 28 sampled residents and two residents (Resident #40 and #138) outside the sample. The facility's census was 139. The facility did not provide a policy regarding MDS accuracy. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) version 3.0 Manual showed: - Section J1400 should be coded yes if the resident is receiving hospice services; - Section N0300 should state the number of days during the 7-day look-back period that any type of injection was received; - Section N0350A should state the number of days during the 7-day look-back period that insulin injections were received. 1. Review of Resident #40's medical record showed: - An admission date of 05/01/24; - Diagnoses of type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin effectively or does not produce enough insulin, leading to high blood sugar…
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 before2025-02-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 implement a care plan with specific interventions to meet individual needs for four residents (Resident #31, #41, #55 and #111) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility's census was 139. Review of the facility's Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan Policy, last revised March 2022, showed: - The interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident; - The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment; - The comprehensive, person-centered care plan includes measurable objectives and time frames, describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practical physical, mental and psychosocial well-being; - When possible, interventions address the underlying sources of the problems, not just symptoms or triggers; - Assessment of residents are on-going…
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 · D2025-02-13 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update and revise care plans with specific interventions to meet individual needs for five residents (Resident #1, #6, #18, #34, and #126) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility's census was 139. Review of the facility's policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised March 2022, showed: - A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident; - The interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident; - The interdisciplinary team reviews and updates the care plan: when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition; when the desired outcome is not met; when the resident has been readmitted to the facility from a hospital stay; and at least quarterly, in conjunction with the required quarterly Minimum…
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 before2025-02-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 consistent resident care for activities of daily living (ADLs) when the residents went an extended amount of time without showers for two residents (Resident #24 and #55) out of three sampled residents. The facility's census was 139. The facility did not provide a facility regarding shower frequency. 1. Review of Resident #24's medical record showed: - An admission date of 11/29/23; - Diagnoses of arthritis (swelling and tenderness in one or more joints, causing joint pain or stiffness that often gets worse with age), spinal stenosis (spaces inside the bones of the spine get too small), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, disease that makes breathing difficult), diabetes mellitus (chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), heart failure (the heart does not pump blood as well as it should), morbid obesity (a disorder that involves having too much body fat, which increases the risk of health…
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 · D2025-02-13 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 obtain an order for oxygen administration and failed to ensure a physician's order for bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP - a noninvasive ventilation device that helps people breathe by delivering pressurized air into the airways) included settings. This affected one resident (Resident #41) out of two sampled residents. The facility's census was 139. Review of the facility's policy titled, CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure)/BIPAP Support, revised March 2015, showed in preparation for BIPAP, review the physician's order to determine the oxygen concentration and flow, and the PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure, settings) pressure for the machine. Review of Resident #41's medical record showed: - admission date of 09/12/24; - Diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder that occurs when the upper airway becomes blocked during sleep), shortness of breath, respiratory failure (a condition making it difficult to breathe on your own), chronic kidney disease (kidneys do not filter waste 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 · D2025-02-13 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 error rate of less than five percent (%) during medication administration. There were 35 opportunities with three errors made, for an error rate of 8.57%, which affected three residents (Residents #32, #102 and #133) out of seven sampled residents. The facility's census was 139. Review of the facility's policy titled, Insulin Administration, revised September 2014, showed: - The type of insulin, dosage requirements, strength, and method of administration must be verified before administration; - The nursing staff will have access to specific instructions (from the manufacturer if appropriate) on all forms of insulin delivery systems prior to their use. Review of the NovoLog (a rapid acting insulin injected just below the skin that helps lower mealtime blood sugar spikes) Flex Pen (insulin in a pen-type device) instructions, revised February 2015, showed: - Before each injection small amounts of air may collect in the cartridge during normal use, to avoid injecting air and to ensure proper dosing;…
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 before2025-02-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 proper infection control practices and implement Enhanced Barrier Protections (EBP) during foley catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) care for one resident (Resident #31) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility's census was 139. Review of the facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene Policy, dated 2001, showed: - All personnel are trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare associated infections; - All personnel are expected to adhere to hand hygiene policies and practices to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents and visitors; - Hand hygiene products and supplies are readily accessible and convenient for staff use to encourage compliance with hand hygiene policies; - Hand hygiene is indicated immediately before touching a resident, before performing an aseptic task, after contact with blood, body fluids or contaminated surfaces, after touching a resident or resident's…
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 before2024-11-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 infection control practices during perineal care for one resident (Resident #1) out of one sampled resident. The facility's census was 137. Review of the facility's Perineal Care Policy, dated February 2018, showed: - Purpose of procedure is to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections, skin irritation and to observe the skin condition; - Place equipment on bedside stand and arrange to be easily reached; - Wash hands thoroughly, dry and put on gloves; - Wet washcloth and apply skin cleanser; - Wash perineal area from front to back; - Turn resident to side and wash rectal area thoroughly, wiping from the base of labia towards and extending over the buttocks; - Rinse and dry thoroughly; - Discard disposable items, remove gloves and wash hands; - Reposition bed covers and make resident comfortable; - Wash and dry hands thoroughly. Review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precaution Policy, dated August 2022, showed: - Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are used as an…
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 · D2024-08-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to report an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse to the state licensing agency officials as required for two residents (Resident #1 and #2) out of four sampled residents. Resident #2 pushed Resident #1 which caused him/her to fall and sustain a head injury that required two staples to the left forehead and a skin tear to his/her left elbow. The facility census was 141. Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation-Reporting and Investigating, last updated 09/22, showed: - Verbal or written notification of an incident or suspicion of abuse or neglect to the immediate supervisor, charge nurse, the Director of Nurses (DON), the Social Service Designee (SSD) or the Administrator; - Verbal or written notification of an incident or suspicion of abuse or neglect to the facility's Ombudsman; - Call Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Hotline; - If you knowingly do not report instances of abuse, you may be subject to disciplinary and legal action. Review of Resident #1's…
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 · E2024-01-11 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 appropriately assess the use of bed rails for 12 residents (Resident #6, #23, #25, #26, #27, #47, #52, #60, #68, #88, #90, and #91) of 28 sampled residents. The facility census was 141. Review of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) documents entitled, Hospital Bed System Dimensional and Assessment Guidance to Reduce Entrapment, dated [DATE], showed 413 people died as a result of entrapment events in the United States. Further review revealed those among the most vulnerable for these entrapment type events are elderly patients and residents, especially those who are frail, confused, restless, or who have uncontrolled body movement. Review of the FDA document entitled, Practice Hospital Bed Safety, dated February 2013, showed seven different potential zones of entrapment. The guidance characterizes the head, neck, and chest as key body parts that are at risk for entrapment. Review of the FDA document entitled, Guide to Bed Safety Rails in…
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 before2024-01-11 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — patternRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
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 staff failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses and side rails as part of a regular maintenance program for 12 residents (Residents #6, #23, #25, #26, #27, #47, #52, #60, #68, #88, #90, and #91) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility's census was 141. Review of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) documents entitled, Hospital Bed System Dimensional and Assessment Guidance to Reduce Entrapment, dated [DATE], showed 413 people died as a result of entrapment events in the United States. Further review revealed those among the most vulnerable for these entrapment type events are elderly patients and residents, especially those who are frail, confused, restless, or who have uncontrolled body movement. Review of the FDA document entitled, Practice Hospital Bed Safety, dated February 2013, showed different potential zones of entrapment. The guidance characterizes the head, neck, and chest as key body parts that are at risk…
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 · D2024-01-11 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 a safe, clean, and comfortable homelike environment. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 141. Review of the facility's policy titled, Homelike Environment, revised February 2021, showed: - Residents are provided with a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment and encouraged to use their personal belongings to the extent possible; - Clean, sanitary and orderly environment; - Pleasant, neutral scents. Observation on 01/10/24 at 11:17 A.M., of the 200 Hall shower room showed broken tiles with rough edges surrounding the floor drain threshold for the shower entrance. Observation on 01/11/24 at 11:55 A.M., of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom sink showed water dripping from the drain into a plastic wash basin sitting on the floor. The wash basin contained dark colored liquid and more than ten dead gnats. Gnats flew around the bathroom and landed on the sink 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 · Dcited before2024-01-11 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of a facility-initiated transfer to the hospital for three residents (Residents #23, #35 and #52) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility census was 141. The facility did not provide a policy regarding a facility-initiated transfer. 1. Review of Resident #23's medical record showed: - Resident transferred to the hospital for medical evaluation on 11/28/23, and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]; - No documentation of a letter notifying the resident and/or the resident's representative of the resident's transfer to the hospital on [DATE]. 2. Review of Resident #35's medical record showed: - Resident transferred to the hospital for medical evaluation on 10/16/23, and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]; - No documentation of a letter notifying the resident and/or the resident's representative of the resident's transfer to the hospital on [DATE]. 3. Review of Resident #52's medical…
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 before2024-01-11 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify 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 inform the resident and/or resident representative of the bed hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for three residents (Resident #23, #35 and #52) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility's census was 141. Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Hold Policy, undated, showed: - Purpose is to notify all residents and/or resident's representative of the bed hold policy for the facility; - If the resident or representative wants to hold the bed, a signed authorization must be obtained with each discharge, these forms are located in the business office; - Upon discharge, the nursing supervisor will re-inform the resident and/or responsible party of the bed hold policy. The designee will follow up the next business day to assure resident and/or responsible party understands the requirements of the bed hold policy; - If the resident or representative does not choose to hold the bed, the bed will be released, and any personal belongings…
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 before2024-01-11 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 document an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff, for two residents (Resident #23 and #60) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility's census was 141. Review of the facility's policy titled, Electronic Transmission of the MDS, revised November 2019, showed the MDS coordinator is responsible for ensuring that appropriate edits are made prior to transmitting MDS data. 1. Review of Resident #23's medical record showed: - admission date of 03/24/23; - Diagnoses of chronic kidney disease, stage 4 (gradual loss of kidney function over time), type II diabetes mellitus (chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), anxiety disorder (disorder characterized by feelings of worry or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), hyperkalemia (elevated level of potassium in the blood), and essential hypertension (abnormally high blood pressure); -…
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 before2024-01-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 implement a care plan with specific interventions to meet individual needs for three residents (Resident #25, #26, and #52) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility census was 141. Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan, revised December 2016, showed a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs will be developed and implemented for each resident. 1. Review of Resident #25's medical record showed: - An admission date of 08/25/23; - Diagnoses of dementia (progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning), pain in the left hip, history of falling, visual hallucinations (seeing something that is not there), atrial fibrillation (an abnormal heart beat), major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and anxiety (disorder characterized by feelings of worry or fear that are strong enough to interfere with…
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 before2024-01-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician's wound care orders for four residents (Resident #26, #58, #95, and #116) out four sampled residents with wounds. The facility census was 141. The facility did not provide a policy regarding following physician orders. 1. Review of Resident #26's medical record showed: - admission date of 11/15/23; - Diagnoses of chronic non-pressure ulcer (non-healing wound not caused by pressure) of left and right lower leg, stage two pressure ulcer (shallow open injury to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin) of left buttock, and unstageable (unable to see the wound bed) pressure ulcer of the sacrum (triangular bone at the base of the spinal column). Review of the resident's wound care documentation showed: - An order to cleanse the right medial (middle) foot and ankle, right lateral (on the side) lower extremity with normal saline (salt and water solution that can be used for cleansing wounds) or dermal wound cleanser (first-aid antiseptic that helps reduce the risk of infection),…
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 before2024-01-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 resident care for activities of daily living (ADLs) when residents did not receive a minimum of two showers per week and preferences were not acknowledged for eight residents (Resident #1, #6, #19, #23, #51, #52, #68 and #123) out of 28 sampled residents. The facility census was 141. Review of the facility's policy titled, Shower, revised 02/03/22, showed: - All residents will be offered and given a shower on their scheduled shower days unless the resident refuses or a staffing emergency; - If a full shower is unable to be given, a bed bath will be offered and a full shower given as soon as possible; - If an alert resident declines a bed bath and only wants a shower, the shower will be completed within 48 hours. 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record showed: - admission date of 05/26/2022; - Diagnoses of dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment…
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 · D2024-01-11 · 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 ensure staff reconciled narcotics (a process that allows one staff to reconcile the exact narcotic inventory on hand with another staff) at each shift change for three out of three observed medication carts. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 141. Review of the facility's policy titled, Controlled Substances, dated April 2019, showed: - The facility will follow all laws, regulations, and other requirements related to handling, storage, disposal, and documentation of controlled substances; - Controlled substances are reconciled upon receipt, administration, disposition, and at the end of each shift; - Controlled medications are counted at the end of each shift. The nurse coming on duty and the nurse going off duty determine the count together; - Policies and procedures for monitoring controlled medications to prevent loss, diversion or accidental exposure are periodically reviewed and updated by the director of nursing services and the consultant pharmacist. Review of the 100/200/300…
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 · D2024-01-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 ensure vials of Insulin Glargine (medication to control high blood sugar with diabetes) and Tubersol (a solution used during a tuberculosis test) were dated when opened. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility's census was 141. Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, revised November 2020, showed: - The facility stores all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner; - The nursing staff is responsible for maintaining medication storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner; - Discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals are returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. Review of the manufacturer's recommendations for Tubersol, revised September 2015, showed the medication to be discarded 30 days after opened. Review of the manufacturer's recommendations for Insulin Glargine, revised December 2020, showed the medication to be discarded after 28 days, even if there is insulin left in the pen or vial.…
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 · C2026-05-20 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to include the actual hours, and total hours worked per shift for licensed and unlicensed staff responsible for resident care and failed to include the daily census for four of the four observed days. The facility census was 147.Review of the facility's policy titled, Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers, revised August 2022, showed:- Our facility will post on a daily basis for each shift nurse staffing data, including the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents;- Shift staffing information is recorded on a form for each shift. The information recorded on the form shall include the following:a. The name of the facility;b. The current date;c. The resident census for the beginning of the shift for which the information is posted;d. Twenty-four-hour shift schedule operated by the facility;e. The shift for which the information is posted;f. Type (Registered Nurse (RN), Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)) and category (licensed or non-licensed) of…
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 SHAFIQ MALIK — 9 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 | 1 of 5 | 3.5 | -2.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.5★, per CMS)
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MALIK, OMER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/19/2019 |
| MALIK, SHAFIQ | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/19/2019 |
| GRECO, SHARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2020 |
| ROBERTS, GUY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2020 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2009 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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.
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 265701. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-20, 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.