Community Springs Healthcare Facility
400 East Hospital Road, El Dorado Springs, MO 64744 · Non profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (417) 876-2531 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 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 fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 19.7% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.3% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.8% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.7% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.4% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.9% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.8% | 17.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.9% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.0% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.4% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.79 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.56 | 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.
38.2% 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 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.1% 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 26 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 42% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 38.2%CMS range 28.1–50.4 | 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 | 11.9%CMS range 7.6–18.1 | 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 | 46.1% | 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 | 34.6% | 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 | 38.5% | 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 | 96.8% | 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 | 3.2% | 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 | 12.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.83 | 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 120 beds and averages 69.0 residents a day — about 58% occupied, or roughly 51 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 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 2.79 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.42 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-03 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to support each resident's right to self-determination related to care when staff failed to care plan and provide showers per residents' preference for three residents (Resident #3, #28, and #6). Review of the facility's policy titled, Personal Hygiene, revised 03/2023, showed the following: -Purpose to establish guidelines for ensuring the hygiene needs of residents are addressed and met; -Purpose to identify the roles of the nursing staff and the patients in maintaining the patients' and residents' personal hygiene; -Staff are to assist with personal hygiene tasks as patients need; -If a patient is unable to care for self, nursing staff will provide full assist with bathing, changing clothing, oral care and other needs; -Patients are expected to shower at two-day intervals or more frequently when requested or required, maintain dental hygiene, wear clean clothes, and take care of personal grooming. 1. Review of Resident #3's Patient Information, showed the following: -admission date of 07/13/22; -Diagnoses included 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 · E2025-01-03 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident's care plan was updated and review for accuracy timely when the care plans of five residents (Resident #37, #31, #33, #10, and #26) were not updated to reflect the residents' current conditions. Review of a facility's policy titled, Assessments in Long Term Care. dated 12/2024, showed the following: -The nursing care plan will be initiated according to identified needs from the admission assessment by a licensed nurse; -Licensed nursing personnel will update care plans as needs are assessed; -The dietitian, social worker, and rehabilitation personnel can assess patients, within the scope of their service and will integrate information into the medical record and assist in identifying and assigning priorities for the resident care needs via the care plan and progress notes. 1. Review of Resident 37's Patient Information showed the following: -admission date of 08/12/24; -Diagnoses included dementia. Review of the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment 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 · D2025-01-03 · 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, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of possible abuse were reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA - Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS)) within two hours when staff failed to report an allegation of possible sexual abuse by one resident (Resident #37). Review of the facility policy titled, Patient Abuse/Neglect, Elder Abuse, and Persons with Disability Abuse, dated 08/2024, showed the following: -Purpose to guide staff, employees, physicians, and any mandated reporter in identifying victims of abuse and provide a reporting mechanism in accordance with all local, state and federal laws; -Purpose to provide safe and efficient care for the patients/residents; -Purpose to keep patients/residents free from abuse, mistreatment, and neglect. 1. Review of Resident #37's Patient Information showed the following: -An admission date of 08/12/24; -Diagnoses included dementia and agitation. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff), with an Assessment…
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 · D2025-01-03 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure all allegations possible abuse had documented complete investigations when staff failed to document a full investigation of an allegation of possible abuse by one resident (Resident #37). Review of a facility policy titled Patient Abuse/Neglect, Elder Abuse, and Persons with Disability Abuse, dated 08/2024, showed the following: -Personnel will complete an electronic Incident Report for further investigation by the designee(s), nursing administration, the Administrator, and/or other disciplines within the facility or outside to ensure resident safety and quality of care. 1. Review of Resident #37's Patient Information showed the following: -An admission date of 08/12/24; -Diagnoses included dementia and agitation. Review of a the resident's Behavior Monitoring, dated 12/28/24, showed the resident asked another resident to expose his/her breasts. Review of Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) records showed a written investigation regarding the allegation of possible abuse was not received. 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 · D2025-01-03 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of all Minimum Data Sets (MDS - a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff) when staff failed to accurately complete one resident's (Resident #56) MDS. Review of the RAI Manual, dated October 2023 showed the following: -Code residents identified as being in a hospice program for terminally ill persons where an array of services is provided for the palliation and management of terminal illness and related conditions; -The hospice must be licensed by the state as a hospice provider and/or certified under the Medicare program as a hospice provider. 1. Review of Resident #56's Patient Information, showed the following: -An admission date of 06/22/24; -Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 12/12/24, showed the following; -The resident had cognitive impairment; -The resident independent with all activities of daily living (ADL); -The resident received hospice care. Review of the resident's medical record…
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 · D2025-01-03 · 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 develop a person-centered comprehensive plan of care with measurable goals and plans for one resident (Resident #57) related to the resident taking antidepressant and an anti-anxiety medication. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, dated 10/2024, showed the following: -The RAI process, which includes the federally mandated MDS, is the basis for an accurate assessment of nursing home residents; -The MDS information and the CAA (Care Area Assessment) process provide the foundation upon which the care plan is formulated; -There are 20 problem-oriented CAAs, each of which includes MDS-based trigger conditions that signal the need for additional assessment and review of the triggered care area; -Detailed information regarding each care area and the CAA process, including definitions and triggers; -After completing the MDS and CAA portions of the comprehensive assessment, the next step is to evaluate 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 · D2025-01-03 · 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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure services were provided per standards of practice for all residents when staff failed to document timely follow-up regarding a possible bruise and failed document regarding resident's wishes to have an area removed for one resident (Resident #5). 1. Review of Resident #5's Patient Information, showed the following: -admission date of 01/20/24; -Diagnoses included urinary tract infection. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/20/24, showed the following: -The resident had cognitively impairment; -The resident required moderate assistance with dressing and toileting and setup with eating and oral hygiene; -The resident had no other skin problems present and did have a pressure reducing device for his/her bed. Review of the resident's Nurse Note, dated 11/22/24, showed upon resident return to facility from outing the family reported several concerns. The resident had a bruise on the back 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 · F2023-06-30 · tag F0922 — failed to maintain the building's systems — widespreadHave enough backup water supply for essential areas of the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to establish procedures to estimate the water needed and ensure that water was available to essential areas if there was a loss of normal water supply, such as in an emergency. The facility has a capacity of 120 and had a census of 60 at the time of survey. Review of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) document named Emergency Water Supply Planning Guide for Hospitals and Healthcare Facilities, dated 2019, showed that water needs can vary greatly from facility to facility, but general guidelines show a need of one to three gallons of water needed per person, per day for consumption and sanitary needs. 1. Review of the facility's Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) showed the EOP hazard assessment stated the risk of loss of water supply as moderate. The EOP did not show any calculation of water needed per person, in case of emergency. The EOP did not show a facility-specific manner on how to obtain sufficient water for residents and staff in case of emergency. Review of a letter to the facility from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-06-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was protected from contamination at all times when staff touched resident food with bare hands and failed to complete hand hygiene after touching soiled surfaces during meal service. The facility census was 60. Review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2013 Food Code showed foods that are ready to eat should not be touched by staff's bare hands. Review of the facility Competencies for Food and Nutrition Services Employees checklist, undated, showed the following: -Practice appropriate hand hygiene and glove use when necessary during food preparation activities, such as between handling raw meat and other foods, to prevent cross-contamination; -Properly wash hands before serving food to resident after collecting soiled plates and food waste; -Prevent eating surfaces of dishware from coming into contact with staff clothing; -Handle cups/glasses on the outside of the container and knives, forks, and spoons by handles; -Practice hand hygiene after direct contact with resident's skin or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents were cared for in manner that provided dignity and respect when staff failed to ensure catheter (tubing to drain the bladder) collection bags were placed inside a dignity bag (bag which prevents urine from being seen) for one resident (Resident #42). A sample of three residents with indwelling catheters was reviewed. The facility census was 60. Review of a facility policy entitled Urinary Catheterization, revised 08/2022, showed the policy did not include information pertaining to the use of a privacy bag for dignity. 1. Review of Resident #42's face sheet (a form that provides basic profile information) showed the following: -admission date of 05/18/21; -Diagnoses included urinary tract infection (UTI), prostate cancer, obstructive and reflux uropathy (prevents normal emptying of the bladder), and bladder infection. Review of the resident's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff), dated 06/13/23, showed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-30 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry 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 complete a documented side rail assessment including risks versus benefits, obtain written consent, obtain a physician order, and complete gap assessments prior to installing side rails for two residents (Residents #53 and #45) in a sample of eight residents with bed rails in use. The facility census was 60. Review of the facility policy entitled Bed Rails and Support Device in Long Term Care, revised 02/2023, showed the following: -Side rails/support devices are utilized if an assessed need is identified by the interdisciplinary team (IDT); -The IDT should complete and document assessment of side rail need; -Staff may utilize the LTC Device Decision Guide to assist with determining whether or not the device is considered a support device or restraint; -Bed rails and support devices require a physician order; -Family or guardian will be notified and consent obtained for use of side rails; -Use of side rails should be added to the resident…
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 · E2020-01-10 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to adhere to professional standards when staff failed to properly disinfect glucometers (small hand-held devices that check blood glucose (sugar) levels for residents) while collecting blood glucose samples on residents with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (a disease that affects how a person's body handles insulin and glucose levels in the blood). This practice affected six residents (Resident #7, #10, #12, #19, #23, and #35) out of a sample of 16. The facility census was 61. Record review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website showed the following information: -Blood glucometers approved for use for more than one person must be cleaned and disinfected. The CDC investigated multiple outbreaks of viral hepatitis (disease affecting the liver) among residents in long-term care (LTC) communities that were attributed to shared devices and other breaks in infection-control practices related to blood glucose monitoring devices. When blood glucose monitoring devices are shared between…
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.
- 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 CITIZENS MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE — 6 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 1.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASHWORTH, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/17/2021 |
| BABB, DONALD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/24/1986 |
| BANNER, KATRINA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/17/2022 |
| CALHOUN, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/02/2022 |
| DAWSON, ERAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/01/2022 |
| FULBRIGHT, GARY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2022 |
| HANCOCK, JANIECA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/15/2018 |
| KALLENBACH, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/20/2019 |
| MEENTS, DANA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/14/2010 |
| MEYER, RENEE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| SMITH, KENNETH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/30/2023 |
| CADLE, VAUTRIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/07/2024 |
| FINNELL, HEATHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/05/2020 |
| FRANCKA, TIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/18/2024 |
| HANAK, SARAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/05/2020 |
| HARDMAN, BRITTANY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/28/2024 |
| TEDROW, JEFFREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/27/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 44 rows in the source record cover these 18 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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $328K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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.
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 265446. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-03, 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.