Elsberry Missouri Health Care Center
1827 Hwy B, Elsberry, MO 63343 · Non profit - Corporation · 56 certified beds · (573) 898-2880 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $28,704 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-31)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 5 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 | 11.6% | 18.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.3% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.8% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.9% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.1% | 25.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.7% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 2.2% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.4% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.77 | 2.33 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 6.5–17.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.71 | 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 56 beds and averages 53.5 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.05 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.32 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 2.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.24 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.36 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-07-31 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident, (Resident #49), with diagnosis of dementia, in a review of 17 sampled residents, received appropriate care to ensure his/her individualized dementia care needs were met. Resident #49 wandered in and out of other residents' rooms uninvited and went through other residents' belongings upsetting other residents. In response, the facility frequently moved the resident to different rooms. On 7/28/24, Resident #49 was looking through his/her roommate's (Resident #46) belongings. Resident #49 became verbally agitated with Resident #46 and in response Resident #46 punched Resident #49 in the arm multiple times resulting in a large bruise to the resident's arm and reinjury to an existing skin tear on the resident's hand. Further review showed Resident #49's care plan did not address dementia or interventions to address the resident's behaviors. The facility census was 54. During an interview on 07/31/25 at 12:04 P.M., 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.
- Actual harm · G2025-04-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 one resident (Resident #3), out of eight sampled residents, was safely transferred from a wheelchair to bed with a mechanical lift. Staff used a lift sling with two torn attachment loops for the transfer, hooking the sling to the lift with the two attachment loops below the torn loops. During the transfer, the lower loops tore, causing the resident to fall from the lift. The resident sustained a laceration to the back of his/her head which required treatment in the emergency room. The facility census was 55. On 4/16/25 at 12:55 P.M., the administrator was notified of the past noncompliance which occurred on 4/8/25. On 4/8/25, the administrator became aware of the resident's fall from a mechanical lift during a transfer. Upon discovery, the facility investigated and notified the appropriate parties. Staff reviewed the mechanical lift policy, were educated on what to look for on a lift sling, including frays, tears, and worn areas, when to report the issues found on the sling, and how to exchange it with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-07-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items were labeled, dated, and covered; failed to maintain the range hood to be free of an accumulation of grease and debris; failed to ensure staff wore beard restraints to prevent potential contamination; and failed to ensure the ice machine was free of a buildup of debris. The census was 54.Review of the undated facility policy, Food Storage-Refrigeration, showed foods shall be stored in an organized manner and shall be maintained in their original containers unless they are considered a leftover. All leftovers shall be labeled and dated with expiration dates. The manager and/or his/her designee shall check the refrigerators daily to ensure leftovers are discarded and all food is properly stored. 1. Observation on 7/28/25 at 10:51 A.M. of the reach-in refrigerator in the kitchen showed the following:-An opened five-pound bag of shredded cheddar cheese was open to air and was not sealed;-A small metal pan, labeled tomatoes, was partially covered with foil and was not dated. The pan was open to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-07-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the facility policy to address Legionella (a bacterium that can cause a serious type of pneumonia called Legionnaires' Disease (a bacterial disease commonly associated with water-based aerosols) in persons at risk) control that included specific control parameters based on Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)) standards. The administrator said the facility did not have a water management team, did not have a water flow map with the details of the water flow though the building and that include all of the elements the facility policy directed, and the facility had not been monitoring cold water temperatures. The Director of Nursing had not been trained to monitor residents with pneumonia for possible Legionnaire's Disease as directed by the facility policy. The facility census was 54. Review of the facility's Legionella and Water Management…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to make appropriate updates and revisions to develop a plan of care consistent with residents' specific conditions, needs and risks for two residents (Resident #34 and #17) in a review of 17 sampled residents. The facility failed to revise Resident #34's care plan to provide staff direction for interventions related to the resident's auditory and visual hallucinations and confusion, did not update to address the resident's mechanically altered diet/loss of liquid/solids from his/her mouth when eating or drinking, holding food in his/her mouth/cheeks or residual food in mouth after meals, and did not address pain medications for pain and/or anxiety, and failed to revise Resident #17's care plan to include the resident's current oxygen therapy order. The facility census was 54. Review of the undated facility policy, Care Plan, showed the following:-A care plan is initiated upon admission (known as the baseline care plan) and is revised…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician's orders and facility policy when they did not notify the physician of blood glucose results (the amount of sugar in the blood outside of the parameter outlined in the physician's orders and facility policy for one resident, (Resident #2) in a sample of 17 residents. The facility also failed to adequately monitor pain for one resident (Resident #2) who had multiple diabetic wounds to his/her feet and arthritis. The facility census was 54. Review of the undated facility policy, Blood Glucose Test Procedure, showed the following:-Record test results in electronic medical record (EMR);-Report any values less than 50 or greater than 400 to the physician. Unless otherwise instructed by physician. Review of the undated facility policy, Notification of Changes, showed the facility will notify the resident, consult with the resident's physician and the resident's legal representative or an interested family member when a significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status…
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 · F2023-10-19 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the designated Dietary Manager (DM) had the required education, certification, or experience to qualify her for the position. This had the potential to affect 52 of 52 residents who received meals from the dietary department. Findings included: During an interview on 10/18/2023 at 2:09 PM, the Administrator stated the facility had no policy or procedure addressing the requirements to serve in the dietary management position. A review of the DM's employee file revealed the facility initially hired the DM in August 2022 as a housekeeper and laundry aide. No documentation of training was found within the DM's employee file regarding her move from housekeeping and laundry to the position of DM, nor was there any information regarding any food service certifications. An Employee 60 Day Review, dated 01/16/2023, indicated the DM was learning new role, including ordering, cooking, and supervising, and an Employee 90 Day Review, dated 03/27/2023, indicated the DM continues to learn. The DM's employee file also…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-19 · 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 observations, interviews, facility document and policy review, and review of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2022 Food Code, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained meal temperature monitoring records for each meal service; failed to ensure staff maintained monitoring records of the sanitizer concentrations for the three-compartment sink to ensure items were properly sanitized; and failed to ensure staff thawed a roll of ground beef in accordance with professional standards. These failures had the potential to affect 52 of 52 residents who received meals from the dietary department. Findings included: 1. A review of an undated facility policy titled Department Meal Service: Meal Service Temperatures revealed, Purpose To ensure appropriate food temperatures during meal service and to ensure appropriate food holding temperatures. To comply with federal and state regulations governing food meal service. The policy also indicated, Meal temperatures shall be monitored by the Dietary Manager and the Cooks on a daily basis. The procedural section 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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-19 · 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 observations, interviews, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly store and secure medications for 2 (Hall 100 medication cart and facility medication/treatment cart) of 3 medication carts observed and failed to ensure proper labeling of eye drops for 1 (Resident #43) of 3 residents observed for eye drop administration during medication pass. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure medications remained in direct line of sight of staff or were in a locked compartment, failed to properly store tramadol under a double lock, and failed to date an eye drop container when opened. Findings included: A review of an undated document titled Medication storage in the facility revealed, Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer ' s recommendations or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to license nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. Further review revealed Schedule III and IV controlled medications are…
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 · E2023-10-19 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — patternEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and document review, the facility failed to ensure three (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #7, #8, and #11) of five CNAs had at least 12 hours of in-service training per year. Findings included: During an interview on 10/19/2023 at 4:56 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), and the Health Information Manager (HIM) stated the facility had no policy related to required training for CNAs. A review of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) memorandum dated 04/07/2022 regarding the Update to COVID-19 Emergency Declaration Blanket Waivers for Specific Providers revealed In response to the COVID-19 PHE [Public Health Emergency] and under the Secretary's authority set out at section 1135 of the Social Security Act, CMS enacted several temporary emergency declaration blanket waivers which were intended to provide health care providers with extra flexibilities required to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The memorandum indicated, CMS is ending the specific emergency declaration blanket waivers for SNFs/NFs [Skilled Nursing…
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 · D2023-10-19 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) form included all current mental illness diagnoses for one (Resident #26) of one sampled resident reviewed for PASARR requirements. Findings included: A review of a document provided by the facility titled What to submit to COMRU [Central Office Medical Review Unit] for client entering a Skilled Nursing Facility, dated January 2020, revealed that when completing a Level One Nursing Facility Pre-admission Screening for MI/ID [mental illness/intellectual disability], staff should Be sure to complete all blanks and Be sure Section B#2 (Mental Illness Diagnosis) is answered - Refer to client's diagnosis list. A review of Resident #26's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/04/2022. The Diagnosis Information section of the admission Record indicated, No Data Found. A review of Resident #26's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/07/2022, revealed Resident #26 had 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 · D2023-10-19 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow physician orders related to wound care for one (Resident #43) of three residents reviewed for wound care. Findings included: Review of an undated facility policy titled Physician Services revealed, All physician or other health care professional verbal orders, including telephone orders, will be immediately recorded, dated, and signed by the person receiving the order. The policy also noted, All physician orders will be followed as prescribed and if not followed the reason shall be recorded on the resident's medical record during that shift. Review of an undated facility policy titled Clean Dressing Change revealed, It is the policy of the facility to ensure change dressings [sic] in accordance with State and Federal Regulations, and national guidelines. The facility policy indicated Procedure: 1. Verify and review physician's order for procedure. The policy also indicated 19. Apply clean dressing as ordered and ensure the dressing is dated. Review of Resident #43's admission…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained infection control practices to prevent the spread of infection during treatments of wounds and administration of medications for one (Resident #43) of two residents observed for wound care and two (Resident #21 and Resident #152) of eight residents observed during medication pass. Findings included: A review of an undated facility policy titled Hand Hygiene Guidelines, revealed, Key times to wash hands included before and after treating a cut or wound. The policy revealed Sanitizers can quickly reduce the number of germs on hands in many situations. A review of an undated facility policy titled Clean Dressing Change, revealed, It is the policy of the facility to ensure change [sic] dressings in accordance with State and Federal Regulations, and national guidelines. The policy revealed Procedure: 1. Verify and review physician ' s order for procedure. 2. Perform hand hygiene and assemble equipment and supplies needed for dressing change. 3. Identify 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
$28,704 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $28,704 — penalty dated 2025-07-31
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-09-10 for 4 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BONNEY, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 04/29/2021 |
| HAAKE, LINDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/28/2008 |
| HOUSTON, BEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/22/2010 |
| LOVELACE, WAYNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/28/2008 |
| MAYES, JIM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/28/2008 |
| ELSBERRY MISSOURI HEALTH CARE CENTER INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/17/1974 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265825. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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.