Aspire Senior Living Excelsior Springs
1003 Meadowlark Lane, Excelsior Springs, MO 64024 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 108 certified beds · (816) 630-3145 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568, F0569)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (34) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 22.3% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.7% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 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 | 5.5% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.7% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.9% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.8% | 17.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.4% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.4% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.0% | 26.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.5% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.56 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.16 | 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.
53.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 31 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.2% 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 32 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 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 72% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 53.4%CMS range 38.4–67.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 7.9–16.4 | 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 | 56.2% | 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 | 59.4% | 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 | 43.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 3.5–14.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 108 beds and averages 79.0 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 29 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.01 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.29 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 2.59 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.18 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.34 to 0.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above 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.
34 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-01-08 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to prepare and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when facility staff failed to properly store and monitor food items for expiration dates, dispose of dented cans in a timely manner, and failed to maintain a three-day emergency food supply. This affected all residents in the facility. The facility census was 78.Request for facility Food Department Policies on food storage not provided;Observation in the Dry Storeroom on 1/5/25 at 9:00 A.M., showed:- Emergency Food Stock had only 12 cans of food and three bags of pasta for emergencies. - Two #10 sized cans of peans on the ground underneath the can storage rack. - Three rows of six #10 sized cans (18 total) in the can storage rack are dented and marked Do Not Use. - Three dented #10 sized cans on the ground labeled Do Not Use. Two are being used as door stops and one is just lying under a storage rack. One can is rusted and bulging on the side. - Large Plastic facility 5-gallon bin holding breadcrumbs dated 7/16/25 with no use by date.-…
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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0552 — patternEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform residents and/or their responsible parties, in advance, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, when the facility failed to obtain written consent before beginning psychotropic medications (medications that affect the mind, emotions, and behavior) for three Residents (Resident #9, Resident #44, and Resident #68) of the 18 sampled residents. The facility census was 78. Review of the facility's Protecting, Promoting and Ensuring Resident Rights- Facility Responsibility policy, dated 1/30/25, showed every Resident has the right to be fully informed, in advance, about the care and treatment and of any changes in the care or treatment that may affect the resident's well-being. 1. Review of Resident #44's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 11/21/25, showed: - Cognition was intact - The resident took antianxiety medications on a regular basis; - The resident took antipsychotic…
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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0569 — patternNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide personal funds and a final accounting within thirty days upon discharge for five residents (Resident #85, #86, #87, #88 and #89) and failed to notify by letter one resident (Resident #7) when they were within $200.00 of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) resources limit. This affected six of 18 residents sampled. Facility census was 78. Review of facility policy Facility Resident Trust Fund, undated, showed:- The individuals trust account should be kept below the balance of $5700.00 as a best practice rule, however, the current limit for Medicaid recipients is $5909.25. Any individual Resident Trust Account that is nearing (within $200 dollars) the state specified maximum balance will require the following action: notification to resident or responsible party via letter, discussion on items resident might need for comfort.- Refund for discharged resident: Must be completed within 5 business days of the resident discharge.- Refund for…
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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide privacy for two Residents (Resident #2 and #39) of 18 sampled residents during cares when staff failed to close the privacy curtain during peri-care for Resident #39 and failed to close the window blinds when performing a dressing change to Resident #2's buttock wound. The census was 78. Review of the facilities Perineal Care policy, dated April 2025, showed:- Staff were to provide privacy by pulling curtain or closing room door if a private room. Review of the facilities Resident Rights policy, dated April 2025, showed:- The facility will treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his/her quality of life and recognizes each resident's individuality;- The resident has the right to personal privacy;- When providing resident care, always provide privacy by knocking and announcing yourself, pulling the curtain around the bed, pulling the drapes…
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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0645 — patternPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 an assessment of the Level I preadmission screening resident review (PASARR) assessment (used to identify individuals with mental illness or intellectual/developmental disabilities completed before admission to the nursing facility) was completed before admission for two Residents (Resident #68 and Resident #80). The affected two of 18 sampled residents. The facility census was 78. Review of the facility's Preadmission Screening for Individuals with a Mental Disorder/Intellectual Disability PASARR policy, dated 1/30/24, showed:- Ensure each resident in a nursing facility is screened for a mental disorder or intellectual disability prior to admission; - The initial screening is referred to as Level I identification of individuals with mental disorder or intellectual disability and is completed prior to admission to this facility;- PASARR is a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care.…
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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based interview and record review the facility failed to provided care and treatment in of accordance with professional standards of practice when facility staff failed to follow physician's orders for three of 18 sampled residents (Resident #5, #24 and #68), when staff did not provide Mighty Shakes (a nutritional supplement used in individuals needing supplemental nutrition) and failed to notify the physician the shakes had not been given to Residents #5, #51 and #68 as ordered. The facility census was 78.The facility did not provide the requested policy regarding professional standards. 1.Review of Resident #5's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated instrument completed by facility staff dated 11/20/25 showed:-No cognitive impairment;-Partial assistance from staff with bed mobility and toileting; -Incontinent of bowel and bladder; -Diagnoses included dementia, low blood pressure and anxiety. Review of the resident's care plan dated 11/22/25 showed:-The resident had a potential nutritional…
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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure dependent residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene when facility staff did not provide proper incontinence care for two of 18 sampled residents (Resident #2 and #39). The facility census was 78. Review of the facilities Perineal Care policy, dated April 2025, showed:- It is the practice of this a facility to provide perineal care to all incontinent residents during routine bath and as needed in order to promote cleanliness and comfort, prevent infection to the extent possible, and to prevent and assess for skin breakdown;- Staff were to provide privacy by pulling curtain or closing room door if a private room;- Cleanse buttocks and anus, front to back; vagina to anus in females and scrotum to anus in males, using a separate washcloth or wipes;- Separate the resident's genital folds with one hand and cleanse perineum with the other hand, repeat on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-08 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide proper respiratory care when staff failed to document the date when oxygen tubing was cleaned for four residents (Residents #2, #9, #29, and #39) and additionally failed to properly store oxygen accessories at the bedside for two residents (Resident #2 and #29). This affected four of 18 sampled residents. The facility census was 78.Review of the facility's Oxygen Administration policy, dated April 2006, showed:- There was no specific guidance on changing out prefilled disposable humidifiers by month or week;- Label humidifier with date and time opened. There was no guidance for when oxygen tubing should be changed;- Precaution - constant flow of oxygen can cause drying and thickening of normal secretions resulting in laryngeal ulceration;- There was no guidance on regular intervals to check and clean oxygen equipment, masks, tubing, or nasal cannulas;- There was no guidance on regular intervals to check liter flow contents 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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure they assessed residents for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation and when staff failed to ensure the bed's dimensions were appropriate for the resident's size and weight for three of 18 residents sampled (Residents #51, #4 and #24). The facility census was 78.Review of the facility's Bed Rails policy dated 1/30/2024 showed:-Ensure correct installation and maintenance of bed rails;-The facility will ensure correct installation and use maintenance of bed rails; -The facility will assess the resident's risk for entrapment from bed rails prior to installation and ensure the beds dimensions are appropriate for the residents size and weight;-The facility will follow the manufacturers recommendations and specifications for installing and maintaining bed rails; -The facility will inspect and regularly check the mattress and bed rails for areas of possible entrapment;-The facility must conduct routine preventive…
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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — patternRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation interview and record review the facility staff failed to complete inspection of bed frames, mattresses and bed rails as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment for three of 18 sampled residents (Resident #51, #4 and #24). The facility census was set 78.1. Review of Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated instrument completed by facility staff dated 08/05/25 showed:-No cognitive impairment;-Dependent on staff for toileting and bed mobility;-Incontinent of bowel and bladder;-Two or more falls with injury since admission;-Diagnoses included Multiple Sclerosis (MS) a chronic autoimmune disease that can cause high cholesterol and depression.Review of the resident's care plan dated 01/04/26 showed:-Diagnosis of MS;-At risk for falls;-The resident had a non injury fall on 09/23/25;-The resident had a fall with injury on 01/01/26; -Used bilateral cane rails for bed mobility and positioning.Review of the resident's Physician's Order…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 24 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the home failed to store all drugs and biologicals under proper temperature controls, when the facility was unable to provide a record that the refrigerator temperature in the Certified Medication Technician (CMT) medication room had been monitored to ensure medication was being stored at the proper temperature. The facility census was 78. The facility did not provide a medication storage policy. Observation of the medication room labeled as the CMT medication room (Certified Medication Technicians) on 01/06/2026 at 3:20 P.M. showed:-No refrigerator temperature log sheet on refrigerator and no logbook available in medication room;-The freezer compartment of the refrigerator had ice buildup on it and extending past the edges of the compartment;-Contents of the refrigerator included: two Mighty Shakes (a nutritional supplement used in individuals needing supplemental nutrition) and Arformoterol (a medication used for long-term maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) for Resident #9. During an Interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-04 · tag F0839 — isolatedEmploy staff that are licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with state laws.
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 maintain a qualified licensed administrator on duty from [DATE] to [DATE]. The facility census was 78. Review of an undated facility policy regarding the Administrator showed: -The governing board of this facility has appointed an Administrator who is duly licensed in accordance with current federal and state requirements. A licensed administrator is responsible for the day-to-day functions of the facility. Review of the job description for the Administrator position showed: - Minimum Requirements, Abilities and Expectations include Current Administrator license or certification as required by state regulations. Review of the current Missouri Association of Nursing Home Administrators license registry web site showed Administrator A not listed as a current Missouri Licensed Administrator. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:45 A.M., Administrator A said she was not aware her license had expired and she would reach out to the Missouri Board of 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 · Ecited before2024-07-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to remove expired medications from two of two medication storage rooms observed for medication storage. This failure had the potential to subject residents to unsafe or ineffective treatments. The facility census was 77. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Storage of Medications revealed, . No discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated medications are to be used . All such medications are destroyed according to a facility policy . During an observation on 07/24/24 at 10:46 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 and the surveyor observed the medication room by nurse's station. Three tubes of expired Skintegrity Hydrogel, used in the treatment of some pressure ulcers, were noted on a shelf within a cabinet. Two of the tubes had an expiration date of May 2024. One had an expiration date of October 2023. LPN1 confirmed the hydrogel had expired and removed the tubes from the medication room. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 10:48 AM, LPN1 stated, The supply person goes through the med rooms daily.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-25 · 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 policy review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards of food service safety for 17 of 17 residents who received nutritional supplements. This had the potential to result in food born illnesses for residents who consumed nutritional supplements. The facility census was 77. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Aspire Supplements, revealed the policy did not address thaw and use-by dates for any dietary supplement. During the initial tour of the kitchen on 07/22/24 at 8:40 AM, a box containing 59 four-ounce thawed Mighty Shakes (a nutritional supplement) was noted in the walk-in refrigerator in the main kitchen. The box was dated 08/22/24. Each four-ounce carton contained a warning label that recorded, . store frozen, thaw at below 40 degrees. Use thawed product within 14 days . It was recorded that Mighty Shake ingredients included skim milk. The nutritional supplements were not labeled with a thaw or use-by date. At 8:45 AM, seven Mighty Shakes were noted in the reach-in refrigerator in the main…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that staff appropriately cleaned and disinfected patient equipment after using a wrist cuff and manual blood pressure cuff for one of three residents (Resident (R) 21) observed during the medication pass out of a total census of 77. This failure could promote the spread of multi drug resistant organisms (MDROs) throughout the facility. The facility census was 77. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Medication Cart Clean/Disinfecting, revealed, . Clean all equipment (BP cuffs, pulse ox, etc.) that comes in contact with resident per packaging between each use . Review of R21's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral ischemia. During an observation on 07/24/24 at 8:55 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMT) 1 took R21's blood pressure using a wrist cuff. CMT1 then placed the dirty wrist cuff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-25 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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, record review, and review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance and facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a functional Antibiotic Stewardship Program that ensured criteria was met for the use of antibiotics for one of two residents (Resident (R) 47) reviewed for antibiotics out of a total sample of 22. This had the potential to cause residents to be prescribed antibiotics that were potentially unnecessary. The facility census was 77. Review of an undated, untitled CDC document located at https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/hcp/core-elements/nursing-homes-antibiotic-stewardship.html revealed, The Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship for Nursing Homes indicated . Improving the use of antibiotics in healthcare to protect patients and reduce the threat of antibiotic resistance is a national priority . Antibiotic stewardship refers to a set of commitments and actions designed to 'optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse events associated…
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 · F2022-06-23 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to review and update their facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for their residents competently during day to day operations and emergencies. The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy regarding maintaining a facility assessment. Review of the facility assessment, provided by the facility, showed: -The assessment was last updated on 12/3/2021. - The information provided did not include any updates or evidence of review for the first six months of 2022. During an interview on 6/23/2022 at 3:00 P.M., the Administrator said: - The facility assessment has not been updated to reflect recent changes at the facility, including change of ownership. - It is the Administrator's responsibity to ensure the facility assessment is reviewed regularly and updated as needed.
- Potential for harm · F2022-06-23 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — widespreadSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 keep the residents' medical record accessible to staff for 14 residents (Resident #51,#7, #36, #12, #26, #153, #11, #34, #9, #49, #30, #4, #45 and #3) out of 14 sampled resident's. The facility census was 54. 1. Record review of the resident's sampled on survey, Resident #51,#7, #36, #12, #26, #153, #11, #34, #9, #49, #30, #4, #45 and #3), showed the following records were not accessible: - Nurses Notes prior to 12/1/17; - Care Plans; - Physicians orders prior to 1/1/17; - admission and Quarterly risk assessments prior to 12/1/17; - Physician notes prior to 12/1/17; - Pharmacy Recommendations. - Immunization Records Observation on 6/20/22 at 11:00 A.M., showed the care plans were not readily available to staff and staff did not have access to the previous electronic health record. During an interview on 6/20/22 at 11:13 A.M., the Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator said the care plans were not in one place, some were in the old electronic health record, some were in the new health record. During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-06-23 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop quality assessemnt and assurance (QAA) activities and a quality assurance/performance improvement (QAPI) plan which drives the facility's ability to address any areas of concern and to correct any quality deficiencies identified by the QAPI process. The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy for their QAA/QAPI committee and process. The facility was unable to provide record of their QAA/QAPI committee and process. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:40 A.M, the Administrator said: -The QAA committee met on 2/8/22, with the Administrator, Director of Nursing and Medical Director in attendance. - There is no record or minutes from this meeting as the records were kept on the Administrator's computer, which was erased when the facility changed ownership on 6/1/22.
- Potential for harm · F2022-06-23 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespreadSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure they developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies as part of their Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee. The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy in regards to their QAA process or committee. The facility was unable to provide record of the QAA and QAPI program. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:40 A.M., the Administrator said: - The facility has had one QAA Committee meeting on 2/8/22. The Administrator, Director of Nursing and Medical Director were present. - There are no minutes or record of this meeting as the records were kept on the Administrator's computer, and previous ownership erased the computer when the facility changed ownership on 6/1/22.
- Potential for harm · F2022-06-23 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a quality assessment and assurance (QAA) committee that meets at least quarterly and as needed and contains the minimum required members. The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy regarding their QAA committee. The facility was unable to provide any record or minutes of the QAA program. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:40 A.M., the Administrator said: -The QAA committee has met once, on 6/23/2022, with the Administrator, Director of Nursing and Medical Director present. -There are no minutes or records of this meeting because previous ownership erased the computer where these records were kept when the facility changed ownership on 6/1/2022. -The facility committee should be comprised of the Medical Director, Administrator, Director of Nursing, social services, pharmacist, Dietary Manager, and possibly a charge nurse and Certified Nursing Assistant.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-23 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure they employed a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours per day, seven days per week. The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy regarding RN staffing. Review of the staffing sheets for March 2022 showed: - No RN scheduled for eight consecutive hours on 3/13/22 and 3/27/22. Review of the staffing sheets for April 2022 showed: - No RN scheduled for eight consecutive hours 4/9/22, 4/16/22, 4/17/22, 4/23/22, and 4/24/22. Review of the staffing sheets for May 2022 showed: - No RN scheduled for eight consecutive hours on 5/7/22 and 5/22/22. Review of the staffing sheets for June 2022 showed: - No RN scheduled for eight consecutive hours on 6/4/22, 6/5/22, 6/18/22, and 6/19/22. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 3:00 P.M., the Administrator said: - The facility has an RN that primarily works the night shift, 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. - The administrator thought this constituted 8 consecutive hours of RN coverage within a 24 hour period.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-23 · tag F0730 — patternObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide record that Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) received the required 12 hours in-service education; failed to provide record that competencies were completed and to provide dementia (a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities) education. The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy regarding CNA education. The facility was unable to provide requested records documenting CNAs have received the required 12 hours per year of in-service education. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 3:00 P.M., the Administrator said due to the recent change of ownership, the facility and administrator do not have access to personnel records, including those verifying CNAs receiving the required 12 hours in-service education per year.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-23 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy services thoroughly reviewed the resident medication regimens to identify irregularities related to the use of psychotropic medications for two of 14 sampled residents (Resident #4 and #30) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medication use. The facility census was 54. Review of the facility policy for Psychopharmcologic Drugs Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) Schedule, dated 2009, showed: - Antipsychotics (Antipsychotics, also known as neuroleptics, are a class of psychotropic medication primarily used to manage psychosis, principally in schizophrenia but also in a range of other psychotic disorders. They are also the mainstay together with mood stabilizers in the treatment of bipolar disorder.): - During the first year of use of these drugs, there must be a gradual dose reduction attempt in two separate quarters, unless clinically contraindicated. The attempts should be at least a month apart; - After the first year, the gradual…
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 · E2022-06-23 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to assure staff served food to the residents that was palatable, attractive, and served at a safe and acceptable temperature to the residents. The facility census was 54. Review of the facility policy for food temperatures, dated April 2006, showed: -The Dietary Services Manager (DSM) or designee is responsible for seeing that all food is the proper serving temperature(s) before trays are assembled. -Keep the temperature of hot foods no less than 140 Degrees Fahrenheit during tray assembly. -Hot food should be at least 120 Degrees Fahrenheit when served to the resident. -Take and record all temperatures for all items at all meals. Observation of the regular meal test hall tray on 6/21/22 at 1:00 P.M., showed: -Roast Pork was 133.3 degrees Fahrenheit; -Baked Sweet Potato was 125.4 degrees Fahrenheit; -Green Beans were 106.1 degrees Fahrenheit; -Apple Cobbler was 101.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Observation of the pureed meal test tray on 6/21/22 at 1:14 P.M., showed: -Roast Pork was 137.1 degrees Fahrenheit; -Green…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-06-23 · 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 and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff stored and prepared food in a safe and sanitary manner, and dispose of food in a timely manner. The facility census was 54. Review of the facility policy on Receiving and Storage of Food, dated April 2011, showed: -The Dining Services Managers (DSM) is responsible for receiving and storing food and nonfood items. -All perishable items are stored in either refrigerators (at a temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below) or freezers (at a temperature of 0 degrees Fahrenheit or below.) -Follow the rule of First In First Out (FIFO) Observation of the kitchen on 6/20/22 at 10:02 A.M., showed: - Large fan over the ice machine dirty with dust and debris; - The hood and air filters over the stove are dirty; - The top of the oven idirty with dust and food debris. Observation of the three door refrigerator on 6/20/22 at 10:15 A.M., showed: - Three packages of tortillas, wrapped in plastic, no label or date; - One ziploc back of breakfast sausage, no label or date; - One open bag of mozzarella cheese, no label or date;…
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 · E2022-06-23 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to assure all residents were offered the flu and pneumonia vaccinations in a timely manner. This affected six out of 14 sampled residents (Residents #7, #9, #12, #153, #34, and #36). The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy for pneumonia or influenza vaccinations for the residents. Review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website for Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults showed: - For those who have never received a pneumococcal vaccine or those with unknown vaccination history, administer one dose of PCV 15 (a 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Vaxeuvance) or a PCV29 (20 valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevnar20) - If PCV 15 is used, the recommended interval for an additional vaccine is one year; - For those who previously received a vaccine the minimal interval for additional vaccination is one year 1. Review of Resident #9's medical record showed: - No documentation of the pneumonia vaccine and no documentation of influenza vaccine. 2. Review of Resident #153'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 · E2022-06-23 · tag F0923 — patternHave enough outside ventilation via a window or mechanical ventilation, or both.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the exhaust/mechanical ventitation system. The facility census was 54. 1. Observation on 6/22/22 beginning at 1:47 P.M. showed the following bathroom vents were not operating when tested: - room [ROOM NUMBER], #410, #408, #306, and #206. These bathrooms did not have outside ventiliation/windows. 2. Observation of the bathroom vent in the conference room showed the vent was caked with dust. This bathroom did not have any outside ventiliation/windows. 3. During an interview on 6/22/22 at 5:00 P.M. the Administrator said: - The facility had not had a Maintenance Director since 6/3/22; - She was not sure how often the ventilation was checked but the system should work.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-23 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide individual residents with quarterly statements for two (Resident #45 and Resident #4) of two sampled residents. The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy regarding providing quarterly statements. The facility was unable to provide any quarterly statements for Resident #45 or Resident #4. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:50AM, the Administrator said: - The facility currently does not have a Business Office Manager (BOM). - The Administrator believes that the previous BOM did send out quarterly statements to residents or their responsible parties. - The facility does not have access to these records to verify this has been done. During a recent change of ownership, the facility lost access to the Business Office records.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-23 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure they utilized the correct Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) form, a form that provides information to residents/beneficiaries so that they can decide if they wish to continue receiving the skilled services that may not be paid for by Medicare and assume financial responsibility, for two residents sampled for beneficiary notifications (Resident #45 and Resident #33). The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy for the SNFABN notices. 1. Review of Resident #45's medical record on 6/23/22 at 10:34 A.M. showed: - The resident received Medicare services beginning on 3/24/22 with the last covered day on 5/9/22; - Therapy discharged the resident from Medicare covered services on 5/9/22; - The facility issued the SNFABN notice on 5/6/22, but used an outdated form. 2. Review of Resident #154's medical record on 6/23/22 at 10:35 A.M. showed: - The resident received Medicare services beginning on 12/29/21 with the last covered day on 1/18/22; - Therapy discharged 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 · D2022-06-23 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to screen four of five newly hired staff members when they did not check the Nurse Aide (NA) Registry upon hire. The facility census was 54. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Prevention Program dated as revised December 2016 included the following: - The policy statement showed the residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. - As part of their abuse prevention, the administration will conduct employee background checks and will not knowingly employ any individual who have had a finding entered into the state Nurse Aide Registry concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of their property. 1. Review of Housekeeping Supervisor's (HS) personnel file showed his/her date of hire was 3/23/22. There was no documentation to show they checked the NA registry. 2. Review of NA A's personnel file showed his/her date of hire was 5/2/22. There was no documentation to show they checked the NA registry. 3. Review 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 · D2022-06-23 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and closed record review, the facility failed to ensure a discharge planning process was in place which addressed goals and needs, including caregiver support and referrals to local contact agencies, as appropriate and involved the resident and if applicable the resident representative and interdisciplinary team in developing a discharge plan for one resident (Resident #53) in a review of two closed records. The facility census was 54. The facility did not provide a policy for discharge planning. 1. Review of the progress note dated 4/7/22 at 11:09 A.M. showed: - The resident was discharged home with Hospice. - The resident took all medications with him/her. Review of the closed medical record for Resident #53 showed no discharge care plan with instructions for the family for the care of the resident at home. No care plan to address the Hospice needs or goals for the discharge of the resident to home. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 3:17 P.M. the Social Services Director (SSD) said: - The resident went home with Hospice services. - There is no discharge plan 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 · D2022-06-23 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and closed record review, the facility staff failed to complete a comprehensive discharge summary for one discharged residents (Resident #53). The facility census was 54. Record review of the closed record for Resident #53 showed the resident was discharged to home on 4/7/22 and the staff did not complete a discharge summary. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 3:17 P.M. the Social Services Director (SSD) said: - He/she is responsible for writing the discharge summaries when a resident is discharged from the facility; - The resident was discharged to home, there was no discharge summary completed. During an interview on 6/23/22 at 3:17 P.M. the Administrator said: -She would expect a discharge summary to be written when a resident is discharged from the facility.
- No harm found · C2022-06-23 · tag F0888 — widespreadEnsure staff are vaccinated for COVID-19
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 fully develop and implement their staff vaccination policy for COVID-19 when they did not ensure all required components were included in the policy. Facility census was 54. Review of the facility policy for Employee COVID-19 Vaccinations dated 2/22/22 showed: - It is the policy of this facility to ensure that all eligible employees are vaccinated against COVID-19 as per applicable Federal, State and local guidelines - Policy Explanation: COVID-19 remains a threat to the population's health, and those that reside in long-term care or congregate setting have been greatly affected by this pandemic. Vaccination against COVID-19 ensures that employees will provide a safe workplace and decrease the risk of transmission to this vulnerable population. This policy developed to ensure that all eligible employees are vaccinated against COVID-19 as per Federal, state and local guidelines; - Compliance Guidelines: The facility will ensure that all eligible employees are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, unless religious…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ASPIRE SENIOR LIVING — 16 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 | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CALVERT, GREGG | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | 12% | since 05/01/2022 |
| STEELE, SHERI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 06/01/2022 |
| BROWN, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $279K 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 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 265821. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-08, 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.