Laurie Care Center
610 Highway O, Gravois Mills, MO 65037 · Non profit - Other · 108 certified beds · (573) 374-8263 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)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2024
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 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 | 4 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 2 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 | 24.8% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.1% | 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 | 4.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.2% | 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 | 6.4% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.2% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.1% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 33.3% | 90.9% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.9% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.2% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.6% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 45.0% | 63.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.4% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 0.0% | 13.7% | 12.0% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.60 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.16 | 2.33 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.2% 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 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.08 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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 | 51.2%CMS range 36.7–65.3 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 7.0–15.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 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 | 9.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 43.9 residents a day — about 41% occupied, or roughly 64 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.31 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.23 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-04-01 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to ensure one resident (Resident #1) remained free from sexual abuse when Resident #2 touched Resident #1's chest without Resident #1's consent. The facility census was 48. 1. Review of the facility's policy, Abuse Prevention Program, revised December 2016, showed all residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. This includes but not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse, and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's symptoms. 2. Review of Resident #1's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool used to plan care, dated 1/15/24, showed staff assessed the resident with short and long term memory problems, severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making, required extensive assistance and two person assist for transfers, and had diagnoses of dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with 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 · E2025-04-24 · 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 on interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain professional standards of practice when staff did not complete neurological assessments after unwitnessed falls for seven residents (Resident #13, #19, #21, #23, #28, #35 and #38) of seven sampled residents. The facility census was 41. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Assessing Falls, revised 02/24, showed staff are directed as follows: -If a resident has just fallen, or is found on the floor without a witness to the event, evaluate for possible injuries to resident; -Perform neuro checks if indicated: -Resident states head was struck during fall; -If any signs or symptoms present that may indicate a head injury such as pain, bleeding, changes in mental status, or body language indicators. Review of the facility's Post Fall 72-Hour Monitoring Report, showed staff are directed to: -Complete this assessment at the following intervals for follow up for all falls. -A fall that is unwitnessed, or in which the head is struck, requires…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-24 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to serve food in accordance with the nutritionally calculated recipes and menus to residents who received ground and pureed diets. The facility census was 41. 1. Review of the facility's Kitchen Weights and Measures policy, revised April 2007, showed food services staff will be trained in proper use of cooking and serving measurements to maintain portion control. Review showed serving utensils used will be consistent with choice of metric or U.S. measure used. Review of the facility's Standardized Recipes policy, revised April 2007, showed standardized recipes shall be developed and used in the preparation of foods. 2. Review of the facility's recipe for ground white chicken chili showed the recipe directed staff to serve eight ounce portions. Observation on 04/23/25 at 11:30 A.M., showed [NAME] G served three residents six ounces of white chicken chili, which was two ounces less than the directed amount. 3. Review of the facility's pureed cornbread/margarine recipe showed the recipe directed staff 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 before2025-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to store food in a manner to prevent potential contamination and outdated use. Facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene as often as necessary, using approved techniques, to prevent cross-contamination. Facility staff also failed to properly wash dishes to prevent cross-contamination and the growth of foodborne pathogens. Facility staff failed to maintain an air gap in one ice machine drain. These failures have the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 41. 1. Review of the facility's Refrigerators and Freezer policy dated, November 2022, showed: -Information regarding acceptable storage periods for perishable foods are kept in the supervisor's office. A condensed version is posted by each refrigerator and freezer for reference; -All food is appropriately dated to ensure proper rotation by expiration dates; -Use by dates are completed with expiration dates on all prepared food in refrigerators. Expiration dates on unopened foods are observed and use by dates are indicated once food…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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, facility staff failed to provide written information to the resident and/or the resident's representative of the bed hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for three (Resident #4, #19, and #21) out of three sampled residents. The facility's census was 41. 1. Review of the facility's Bed Hold/Retention Policy, undated, showed the record did not direct staff to provide a bed hold notification, explains the duration of bed-hold, if any, and the reserve bed payment policy. 2. Review of Resident #4's medical record showed the resident discharged from the facility to the hospital on [DATE]. The medical record did not contain documentation staff issued a bed hold upon discharge with the resident or the resident's responsible party. 3. Review of Resident #19's medical record showed the resident discharged from the facility on 12/31/24 and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. The medical record did not contain documentation staff issued a bed hold upon discharge with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 interview, facility staff failed to complete a Comprehensive Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated resident assessment tool, for three residents (Resident #12, #28, and #37) out of five sampled residents who had either improvements and/or declines in condition. The facility census was 41. 1. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual version 3.0, dated October 2024, Omnibus Budget Reconcilliation Act (OBRA)-required Assessment Summary showed assessment time frames as follows: -A significant change in status assessment (SCSA) is appropriate when there is a determination that significant change (either improvement or decline) in a resident's condition from his/her baseline has occurred as indicated by comparison of the resident's current status to the most recent comprehensive assessment and any subsequent quarterly assessments and the resident's condition is not expected to return to baseline in two weeks; -A significant change is any decline in…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 interviews and record review, facility staff failed to complete a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission and failed to provide the resident and/or the resident's representative with a copy of the baseline care plan for two residents (Resident #3, and #192) out of two sampled residents. The facility's census was 41. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans-Baseline, dated 12/2016, showed: -To assure the resident's immediate care needs are met and maintained, a baseline care plan will be developed within 48 hours of the resident's admission; -The baseline care plan will be used until the staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary person-centered care plan; -The resident and their representative will be provided a summary of the baseline care plan that includes but is not limited to the initial goals of the resident, a summary of the resident's medications and dietary restrictions. 2. Review of Resident #3's electronic medical record (EMR), showed…
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 before2023-02-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to store food in a manner to protect from potential contamination and out-dated use. The facility census was 39. 1. Review of the facility's Food Storage (Dry, Refrigerated, and Frozen) policy, dated 2020, showed: -Food shall be stored on shelves in a clean, dry area free from contaminants. Food shall be stored at appropriate temperatures and using appropriate methods to ensure the highest level of food safety. -All food items will be labeled. The label must include the name of the food and the date by which it should be sold, consumed, or discarded. -Discard food that has passed the expiration date, and discard food that has been prepared in the facility after seven days of storing under proper refrigeration. -Leftover contents of cans and prepared food will be stored in covered, labeled and dated containers in refrigerators and/or freezers. -Never leave any food item uncovered and not labeled. Observation on 02/07/23 at 9:45 A.M.,…
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 · F2023-02-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to implement an infection surveillance program that included tracking of organisms responsible for infections and failed to review their Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) on an annual basis. The facility census was 39. 1. Review of the facility's Surveillance for Infections policy, dated September 2017, showed: -The purpose of the surveillance of infections is to identify both individual cases and trends of epidemiologically significant organisms and Healthcare-Associated infections, to guide appropriate interventions and to prevent future infections. Review of the facility's undated Infection Control and Prevention Program Evaluation Policy showed: -The effectiveness of the infection prevention and control program is reviewed no less than annually with findings reported to the QA committee and integrated in the resident safety program; -This review will include an evaluation of results of surveillance findings and analysis to determine opportunities. Review of the facility's undated IPCP showed the record did…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-02-10 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to maintain evidence demonstrating the results of all grievances for a period of no less than three years. facility census was 39. 1. Review of the facility's Grievance/Complaint filing policy, revised April 2017, showed staff were directed as follows: - All grievances, complaints or recommendations stemming from resident or family groups concerning issues of resident care in the facility will be considered. Actions on such issues will be responded to in writing, including a rationale for the response; - Upon receipt of a grievance and/or complaint, the Grievance Officer will review and investigate the allegations a submit a written report of such findings to the Administrator within five working days of receiving the grievance and/or complaint; - The Administrator will review the findings with the Grievance Officer to determine what corrective actions, if any, need to be taken.; - The resident, or person filing the grievance and/or complaint on behalf of the resident will be informed (verbally and in writing) of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-04-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure 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, facility staff failed to store medications in a safe and effective manner, when staff failed to discard expired medications from one of one sampled medication storage room, and failed to remove and discard expired and improperly labeled medications from one of two sampled medication carts. The facility's census was 41. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Insulin Administration, dated 09/2014, showed if opening a new vial, record expiration date and time on the vial (follow manufacturer recommendations for expiration after opening). Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated 04/2019, showed discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals are returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. 2. Observation on 04/21/25 at 10:35 A.M., showed the medication storage room contained: -One bottle of Gerilanta (medication used to treat heartburn) with an expiration date of 04/2024; -Three tubes of Diclofenac Sodium Topical Gel (medication used to relieve pain from arthritis) with an expiration…
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 · C2025-04-24 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, facility staff did not document a thorough facility-wide assessment to include specific staffing needs for each resident unit in the facility or document who is required to complete the assessed competencies and skill sets necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population. Facility census was 41. 1. Review of the facility's Facility Assessment policy, dated October 2018, showed the assessment should include a breakdown of the training, licensure, education, skill level and measures of competency for all personnel. The policy did not contain direction for documentation or assessment of staffing needs of each unit. Review of the facility assessment, dated 02/04/25 showed: -Sixty full time staff, seven part time staff, three as needed staff for a total of seventy staff; -Dayshift includes: eight Registered Nurse (RN) hours, 10 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) hours, 32 Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) hours and eight other hours; -Evening shift includes: three RN hours, 12 LPN hours, 24 CNA hours, and six other hours;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MERRIOTT, LANA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/13/1998 |
| HUFFMAN, AMANDA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/26/2011 |
| SMITH, LANCE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/07/2008 |
| YPYA, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/11/2021 |
| GOOD SHEPHERD NURSING HOME DISTRICT | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/14/1968 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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 265737. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-24, 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.