Surrey Place St Lukes Hospital Skilled Nursing
14701 Olive Blvd, Chesterfield, MO 63017 · Non profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (314) 542-3300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Aug 2024
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 improved from 3 to 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 | 7.9% | 18.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.6% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.4% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 18.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 0.0% | 4.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.3% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 2.6% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.2% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.3% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.7% | 13.7% | 12.0% | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
59.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 563 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.4% 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 124 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 1.04 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 59.3%CMS range 54.9–62.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 8.7–13.6 | 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 | 48.4% | 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 | 47.6% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | 99.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 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 | 0.4% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 4.8–9.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 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 130 beds and averages 80.6 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 49 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 4.72 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.84 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 4.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.94 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.03 to 1.07 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-11 · 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
See the deficiency cited at LUGT12. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication error after one resident with an allergy to penicillin (a class of antibiotics that are commonly used to treat bacterial infections) was ordered and administered Zosyn (a penicillin antibiotic used to treat infections) intravenously (IV, into the vein) to treat a urinary tract infection (UTI) (Resident #503). The facility failed to get a detailed account of the resident's reaction to penicillin after it was reported and the resident's reactions were not documented in the medical record. The resident's family reported to facility staff the resident's reaction to penicillin was blood clots, he/she was highly allergic, and it could kill him/her. The nurse reported he/she was informed the resident's reaction was only blood clots. The pharmacy and the physician were informed the resident's reaction were only blood clots. The resident was administered Zosyn IV and thirty minutes later, he/she had difficulty breathing, was administered four…
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 · F2024-08-01 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — widespreadEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff were trained in required infection control practices such as enhanced barrier protection (EBP) and/or other isolation precautions. The facility failed to have staff's competencies in relation to the infection control training. This failure placed all 80 residents at risk of infection. The lack of adequate training and evaluation of staff's competencies had the potential for residents' needs to go unmet and/or result in a lack of services provided by the facility. Findings include: Review of the course printouts for available education on the computer-based system provided by the facility revealed the Annual Mandatory Courses list indicated Bloodborne Pathogens as the only infection control related education. The Course and Curriculum Assignments by Group: Surrey Place . for different disciplines lists indicated Targeted COVID-19 Training as the only infection control related education. Review of Registered Nurse (RN)1's, RN3's, and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)3's Progress Report for completed education…
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 · F2024-08-01 · 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, review job description, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one of one dietary freezer, and three of three nourishment room (Alpine Park, Canyon Creek, and Dakota) refrigerators had all food labeled, dated and was free of dirt and sticky shelves. This failure has the potential to create the environment for food-borne illnesses to occur throughout the population of 80 residents. Findings include: Observation and interview on 07/29/24 at 9:34 AM, on the shelves in the dietary department walk-in freezer revealed an unsealed bag in a box of frozen fish, an unsealed bag of hashbrowns, and an unsealed bag of potato wedges. The Food Service Director (FSD) stated the bags should not be left opened and the bags should be labeled with the opened date after using them. Observation and interview with the FSD on 07/31/24 at 8:46 AM of the shelves of the refrigerator on the Alpine Park Unit revealed the following food items not labeled or dated: There was a three-compartment to-go container of meat and vegetables, a to-go container 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 · F2024-08-01 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to conduct and document a comprehensive Facility-wide Assessment to determine what resources were necessary to care for its residents competently during day-to-day operations. The facility failed to ensure the Facility Assessment included infection control services, such as surveillance and antibiotic use, as well as the facility employing an Infection Preventionist (IP) who would was responsible for overseeing the infection control program. The lack of an adequate facility assessment had the potential for residents' needs to go unmet and/or result in a lack of services provided by the facility to competently care for all 80 residents who resided at the facility. at the time of the survey. Findings include: Review of the undated Facility-wide Self-Assessment, provided supplied by the facility indicated the assessment failed to address the following pertinent characteristics affecting day-to-day operations and potential emergency situations: 1. Failed to include staffing requirements based on resident acuity…
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 · E2024-08-01 · 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, record review, the facility failed to ensure two of three medication carts (Alpine unit and Canyon unit), and one of two treatment carts (Alpine unit) were locked and secured on three of three resident halls. This failure created a risk of medications being misappropriated or tampered with. Also, the facility failed to remove expired blood collection tubes from two of the three medication rooms (Alpine unit and Dakota Bluffs unit). Findings include: 1. On 07/30/24 at 2:15PM, observation of the Alpine unit medication room revealed the following: 31 of 31 BD vacutainer blood collection tubes with expiration date on 01/31/24. Three of 13 Kangaroo Epump Enplus Spike with Flush Bag (used for nutritional feeding) with expiration dates of 01/31/24 and 05/31/24 Interview on 07/30/24 at 2:31 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 stated that she was not sure who was responsible for removing expired medications and equipment from the medication room. 2. Observation on 07/30/24 at 2:29 PM, on the Alpine unit was an unlocked treatment cart at the nurse station.…
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 · E2024-08-01 · 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 observations, record review, review of policies, interviews, and review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance, the facility failed to follow acceptable standards of practice for infection prevention and control when providing wound care for Resident #35. The facility also failed to ensure one (Resident (R)144) of one resident with a diagnosis of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) was placed in contact precautions. This had the potential for MRSA to spread to staff and to other residents. The facility failed to ensure R1 and R36 were placed in enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for wounds and R294, R6, R35 for use of a catheter. This had the potential for the residents to develop multi-drug resist organisms. The facility failed to ensure dedicated equipment, such as a stethoscope and blood pressure cuff, was assigned to R37 who was in contact precautions for a diagnosis of Clostridium difficile (C-diff). This had 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 · D2024-08-01 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assess one of one sampled resident (Resident (R) 37) for the safe self-administration of medications. This failure could potentially lead to medications being left by staff at the resident's bedside where other residents could access them. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administration of Medications Policy dated 10/23 indicated, .It is the policy of this facility that if a resident requests to self-administer medication(s), the interdisciplinary team (IDT) will assess the resident to determine if it is clinically appropriate to honor the resident's choice, in order to maintain the resident's highest practicable level of functioning. The resident has the right to defer responsibility to the facility. A resident may only self-administer medications after the IDT has determined which medications may be safely self-administered. Review of a facility document titled Resident Information…
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 · D2024-08-01 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect one resident (Resident #38) from misappropriation of property when a staff member took the resident's wallet, and used his/her credit card to purchase take-out food and groceries. The census was 79. The administrator was notified on 7/24/24 of the past non-compliance. The facility had completed their investigation, interviewed staff and residents, notified the police and terminated Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) A. The deficiency was corrected on 7/24/24. Review of the Abuse and Neglect (Suspected) Policy, revised March 2022, included the following: -Residents have the right to be free from any type of abuse, including verbal, physical, psychological, sexual, and emotional abuse and/or exploitation; -Misappropriation of resident property means the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary, or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. Review of Resident #38's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility…
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 before2024-08-01 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication error after one resident with an allergy to penicillin (a class of antibiotics that are commonly used to treat bacterial infections) was ordered and administered Zosyn (a penicillin antibiotic used to treat infections) intravenously (IV, into the vein) to treat a urinary tract infection (UTI) (Resident #503). The facility failed to get a detailed account of the resident's reaction to penicillin after it was reported and the resident's reactions were not documented in the medical record. The resident's family reported to facility staff the resident's reaction to penicillin was blood clots, he/she was highly allergic, and it could kill him/her. The nurse reported he/she was informed the resident's reaction was only blood clots. The pharmacy and the physician were informed the resident's reaction were only blood clots. The resident was administered Zosyn IV and thirty minutes later, he/she had…
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 · D2022-12-21 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to regularly offer/assist a resident with removal of facial hair to maintain good grooming and hygiene for 1 (Resident #100) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Findings included: A review of Resident #100's History and Physical Reports indicated the resident had diagnoses that included carpal tunnel syndrome (a condition that causes pain, tingling and numbness in the hand), spinal stenosis of the lumbar region (narrowing of the spinal canal, compressing the nerves traveling through the lower back), anxiety, and depression. A review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #100 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #100 required limited assistance with personal hygiene. Review of a Care Plan, dated as initiated on 12/07/2022, revealed Resident #100 was care planned for activities of daily…
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 · E2019-08-22 · tag F0923 — patternHave enough outside ventilation via a window or mechanical ventilation, or both.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the residents' bathroom exhaust ventilation system in proper working condition when all residents' bathrooms on the C hallway did not have functioning exhaust vents. This affected all residents on the C hallway. The facility had a capacity of 80 residents with a census of 67. 1. Observation on 8/21/19 beginning at 9:00 A.M., showed the exhaust ventilation system, in all residents' bathrooms of the C hallway, did not work when tested. During an interview on 8/21/19, at approximately 3:15 P.M., the maintenance supervisor said he did not know the residents' bathroom exhaust system did not work. He said the facility had recently had some work done and the ventilation was worked on at that time.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-22 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN, Form CMS-10055) for one sampled resident (Resident #5) out of three sampled residents. The facility census was 67. Record review of Resident #5's SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review showed the following: - The resident's Medicare Part A skilled services episode had a start date of 3/16/19; - The resident's last covered day of Part A service was 3/28/19; - A SNF ABN, Form CMS-10055 was not provided to the resident because the resident was discharged from the facility and did not receive non-covered services. Spoke with POA (Power of Attorney) who was not concerned about charges but wanted to ensure patient was able to be in Medicaid bed and bill Medicaid for coverage. Record review showed the resident did not discharge from the facility after Medicare Part A services ended, but continued to reside in the facility. Record review showed there was not a SNF ABN, CMS-10055 form completed for the resident's Medicare Part A Stay. During 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 · D2019-08-22 · 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 staff failed to provide written notification of transfer to the resident or the resident's representative for four residents (Residents #7, #20, #34, and #66) who transferred to the hospital. The facility census was 67. 1. Review of Resident #7's medical records, showed staff documented the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the resident's transfer form, dated 7/27/2019, showed staff documented there was a medical reason for transfer because the resident fell a day ago and now showed symptoms of pain and swelling in his/her left hip. Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 7/27/2019, showed the resident complained of pain in the left upper leg. When turning the resident to change his/her brief and when the resident stood for the transfer his/her pain level became intolerable. The resident had a hard swollen area to the left hip and the physician was notified and gave orders to send the resident to the hospital. Review of 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.
“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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ST LUKES EPISCOPAL-PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2024 |
| EAKER, NORMAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| EDWARDS, JASON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| GLOTZBACH, EDWARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2016 |
| MARITZ, CYNTHIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2017 |
| PRICE, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| SNOWDEN, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2021 |
| STEGMANN, DANIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2024 |
| BOESCH, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/28/2025 |
| FRANKLIN, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| IVIE, GINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| BAGNALL, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2024 |
| VITIELLO, JONATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 13 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.
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 265414. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-01, 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.