Crystal Oaks
1500 Calvary Church Road, Festus, MO 63028 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 131 certified beds · (636) 933-1818 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $165,187 in federal fines (most recent 2024-03-21)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.7% | 18.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.5% | 5.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.2% | 2.3% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 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 | 2.8% | 4.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.7% | 17.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.8% | 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 | 5.1% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.9% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.0% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.5% | 2.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.1% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.1% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.02 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.96 | 2.33 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
54.4% 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 302 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 109 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 0.54 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 54.4%CMS range 48.4–60.4 | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 8.0–13.0 | 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 | 66.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 68.8% | 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 | 50.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.7% | 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 | 95.7% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.7% | 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 | 1.3% | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 7.5–14.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.83 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 131 beds and averages 121.1 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.10 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.96 is at or above 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 3.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.29 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-03-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #1) of three sampled residents was free from significant medication error when staff failed to verify the medication administered correlated to the physician's orders for 16 doses of a high alert (medication that bears a heightened risk of causing significant patient harm when they are used in error) chemotherapy medication (treatment that uses powerful chemicals to kill fast-growing cells in your body) which resulted in increased pain and multiple infections due to the properties of the medication and toxicity. The resident died as a result. The facility census was 118. The administrator was notified on [DATE] at 3:30 P.M. of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) which began on [DATE]. The IJ was removed on [DATE] as confirmed by surveyor onsite verification. Record review of the facility's Administering Medications Policy dated [DATE] showed: - Medications are administered in accordance with the prescriber orders, including any…
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 · D2025-12-04 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed hold policy upon transfer to the hospital for two residents (Residents #7 and #79) out of five sampled residents and failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of a transfer or discharge to the hospital for one resident (Resident #79) out of five sampled residents. The facility also failed to complete a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of stay, describing the resident's course of treatment while residing in the facility, for one resident (Resident #136) out of two closed records reviewed. The facility's census was 120. The facility did not provide a policy. 1. Review of Resident #7's medical record showed: - admitted on [DATE]; - Transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]; - Transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]; - Transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]; - No documentation that a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices to prevent the development and transmission of infection during wound care for one resident (Resident #27) and urinary catheter (a flexible tube that is placed to drain urine from bladder) care for one resident (Resident #44) out of three sampled residents. The facility census was 120.Review of the facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy, revised October 2023, showed:- The facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of healthcare-associated infections;- Hand hygiene is indicated immediately before touching a resident, before performing an aseptic (to keep free from germs) task, such as handling an invasive medical device, after contact with blood, body fluids or contaminated surface;- Hand hygiene is indicated after touching a resident, a resident's environment, before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same resident, and immediately after glove removal;- Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 60…
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 before2024-08-22 · 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 and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was served under sanitary conditions and failed to ensure kitchen equipment were cleaned and stored in a manner to prevent contamination from foreign substances and the potential for development of foodborne illness. Specifically, the facility did not ensure staff used and maintained proper hand hygiene during food service and distribution, as well as failing to clean and maintain ice/water machine and steam table. This deficient practice has the potential to affect 117 of 117 residents who receive meals and beverages prepared in and served from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: On 08/19/24 at 11:38 AM, [NAME] 1 was observed checking the temperature of the food on the steam table prior to lunch service. [NAME] 1 removed the thermometer from her scrubs top and removed the thermometer from its sleeve cover. Without cleaning the thermometer, Cook1 placed the thermometer in the pureed meatloaf. After confirming the meatloaf was at the appropriate temperature, Cook1 removed the thermometer and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that addressed activities for six of 28 sampled residents (Resident (R) 33, R59, R67, R85, R89, and R102). This failure had the potential to result in activities not provided for the residents. Facility census was 117. Findings include: 1. Review of R33's undated admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) in the Profile tab, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease without dyskinesia. Review of R33's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/11/23, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), score of nine out of 15 indicating R33 was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS revealed it was very important for R33 to keep up with the news, to listen to music he likes, to do favorite activities, to do things with groups of people, to go…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-22 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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, document review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a program of activities to support residents in their choice of activities on the weekends for six of six residents (Resident (R) 33, R59, R67, R85, R89, and R102) that attended the group meeting. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the quality of life for the affected residents. The facility census was 117. Findings include: 1. Review of R33's undated admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) in the Profile tab, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R33's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/11/23, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), score of nine out of 15 indicating R33 was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS revealed it was very important for R33 to keep up with the news, to listen to music he likes, to do favorite activities, 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 · Ecited before2024-08-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to ensure one of one clean laundry cart was covered to prevent potential contamination of all residents' in the facility personal items. The facility census was 117. Findings include: Review of the CDC guidance titled Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) dated 03/19/24 https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/hcp/cleaning-global/appendix-d.html#:~:text=Each%20floor%2Fward%20should%20have,detergent%20and%20warm%20water%20solution indicated, . Sort, package, transport, and store clean linens in a manner that prevents risk of contamination by dust, debris, soiled linens or other soiled items. Observation on 08/19/24 at 10:52 AM, the uncovered clean laundry cart came through the dining room. The laundry cart contained personal items During an interview on 08/19/24 at 11:43 AM, the Housekeeping/Laundry Aide 1 stated she delivered resident laundry to all rooms and has never been told to cover the clean laundry on the cart. During this observation, the cart contained…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-22 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide one of five shower rooms (300 unit shower room) that was functional and had a sanitary environment for residents in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the 300 unit shower room was clean and free of mold and feces on the floor, the shower curtain was free of brown stains, the shower cord did not spray water and the toilet was clean and in good repair. These failures had the potential to affect all residents on the 300 hallway who used the 300 shower room. The facility census was 117. Findings include: Observation on 08/20/24 at 9:53 AM of the shower room at the end of the 300-hall revealed a strong unrecognizable odor. The toilet in the shower room was dirty with stains and was loose from the floor. The shower curtain was heavily soiled. The shower walls had a pinkish/orange and black substance on them. There was a dead bug on the shower room floor. Registered Nurse (RN) 2, Nurse Manager for the 300, 400, and 500 halls, was present during this observation and confirmed the observations.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-22 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 a resident's sense of well-being was promoted due to enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). Specifically, a sign was posted on the door for one of 28 sampled residents (Resident (R) 30), which caused a negative effect on R30's sense of well-being. The facility census was 117. Findings include: Review of R30's undated admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, showed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of end stage renal disease (ESRD). Review of R30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/05/24, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated she was cognitively intact. Observation on 08/20/24 at 8:32 AM revealed there was an enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) sign posted on the outside of R30's door. During an interview at this time, R30…
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 before2023-01-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. This has the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 94. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Operational Manual, dated September 2013, showed: - It is policy that the dietary department participates in a strict environmental sanitation program; - Staff is trained to properly clean and sanitize all food service equipment in the food service department; - Steam tables, ovens, carts, racks, tables and all other equipment is cleaned and sanitized by Dietary daily; - Cracked China and glassware will be discarded; - Dishwashing procedures and techniques will be carried out as specified by State and local health codes; - Walls, pipes, sinks and fixtures are cleaned routinely with sanitizing compounds by Housekeeping; - Floors are swept by Dietary and mopped by Housekeeping nightly. Floors are also deep scrubbed with scrubber on Mondays and Thursdays; - Ceilings, vents,…
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 · F2023-01-27 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the garbage dumpster and trash receptacles were covered for four of four days of observation. The facility census was 94. 1. Observation of the kitchen on 1/24/23 at 12:50 P.M. showed one uncovered trash receptacle partially full of refuse near the hand washing facility. 2. Observation of the dumpster area on 1/25/23 at 2:31 P.M. showed one 40 yd. (yard) compactor dumpster (a machine or mechanism used to reduce the size of material or bio mass through compaction) partially filled with trash bags that were full of refuse in the opened collection area of the dumpster. 3. Observation of the dining room serving area on 1/25/23 at 3:22 P.M. showed one uncovered, brown, 13 gal. (gallon) trash receptacle partially full of refuse beside the steam table. 4. Observation of the dumpster area on 1/26/23 at 9:34 A.M. and 1:05 P.M. showed the following: - One 40 yd. compactor dumpster with trash bags full of refuse in the opened collection area of the dumpster; - One 40 yd. compactor dumpster with trash bags full of refuse and a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2024-08-22 · tag F0576 — widespreadEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure that mail was delivered on Saturdays to the residents of the facility. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all of the residents in the facility. The failure to not receive mail on Saturday could cause residents to not receive important business documents timely and family communications. The facility census was 117. Findings include: 1. Review of R59's electronic medical record (EMR) titled admission Record located under the Profile tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R59's EMR titled quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/24/24 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. 2. Review R102' EMR titled admission Record located under the Profile tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R102's EMR titled quarterly MDS…
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
$165,187 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $165,187 — penalty dated 2024-03-21
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SHAFIQ MALIK — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.5★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MALIK, OMER | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| MALIK, SHAFIQ | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| LEWIS, CLARISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/21/2025 |
| NASH, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/21/2025 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/10/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M 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 265369. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-04, 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.