Scenic Wellness And Rehabilitation Center
1333 Scenic Drive, Herculaneum, MO 63048 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 189 certified beds · (636) 931-2995 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 4 to 5 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 | 15.6% | 18.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| 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 | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 4.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.4% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.7% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 17.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.2% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.5% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.6% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.08 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.99 | 2.33 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
57.8% 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 62 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 33.9% 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 65 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 43% of the 13,714 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 14% — 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 | 57.8%CMS range 47.6–70.4 | 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 | 8.9%CMS range 5.9–13.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 33.9% | 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 | 30.8% | 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 | 27.7% | 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 | 98.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.7%CMS range 3.5–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.92 | 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 189 beds and averages 168.6 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 20 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 2.86 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.32 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.83 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 2.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.11 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.30 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-18 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify five residents (Residents #116, #123, #160, #170, and #186) out of 10 sampled residents when their resident trust fund account balances were within $200 of their Medicaid spend-down limit. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents receiving Medicaid benefits with a spend-down requirement. The facility census was 169. The facility did not provide a policy regarding spend-down notifications. Review of resident fund balance notification letters for Residents #116, #123, #160, #170, and #186 showed: - Letters were dated 05/13/26, and identified each resident by name; - The letters said, This letter is to notify you that your current resident fund balance is within $200 or exceeding what is allowable under Medicaid assistance. Please contact your Social Worker within the next seven days to discuss ways to assure continuance of Medicaid benefits; - Each letter contained a resident acknowledgment signature line; however, none of the letters were signed by the residents. Review of the facility's…
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 · D2026-06-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the physical environment of the bathrooms and showers in a safe, clean, and sanitary manner. This deficient practice had the ability to affect all residents who use the bathrooms and showers. The facility census was 169. The facility did not provide a policy regarding cleaning the bathrooms and showers. Observation on 06/17/26 at 11:00 A.M., of the 500 Hall women's shower room showed: - The area around the floor drain located in the center of the room with multiple cracked, broken, and missing floor tiles, deteriorated grout surrounding the drain, and an uneven floor surface around the drain; - The shower floor drain located within the shower area with a wet tissue-like substance and black residue/debris on and around the drain cover with cracked, broken, and missing surrounding floor tiles, and deteriorated grout surrounding the drain; - The hanging shower curtain with black discoloration/staining on the lower portion of the curtain; - Black and green discoloration/residue along the floor-to-wall junction…
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 before2026-06-18 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess residents for the risk of entrapment, review possible risks and benefits of bed rails or trapeze (an overhead assistive device with a suspended triangular handle), and obtain informed consent prior to installation or use for five residents (Residents #8, #84, #162, #172, and #173) out of 33 sampled residents. The facility census was 169.Review of the facility's policy, Bed Rails, revised 06/20, showed: - The assessment of whether to use bed rails should include an evaluation of the alternatives to the use of bed rails that were attempted and how these alternatives failed to meet the resident's assessed needs; - Before installing a bed rail, the facility must assess the resident for the risk of entrapment from bed rails and ensure the bed's dimensions are appropriate for the resident's size and weight. The manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installing and maintaining bed rails will be followed; - If the bed rail…
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 · D2026-06-18 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 provide pharmaceutical services that assured accurate dispensing, storage, and labeling of medications. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility's census was 169. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication - Administration, undated, showed: - Medication will be administered by a Licensed Nurse per the order of an attending physician or licensed independent practitioner, or as consistent with state law; - Medications must be given to the resident by the Licensed Nurse preparing the medication, or as consistent with state law; - Medications may be administered one hour before or after the scheduled medication administration time; - Medications will not be left at the bedside. 1. Observation on 06/18/26 at 9:15 A.M. of the [NAME] Hall Medication Cart showed six medication cups in the top drawer of the cart with multiple unidentified medications popped out into each cup and not labeled with the residents' name, date, or time. During an interview on 06/18/26 at 9:22 A.M., Certified…
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 before2026-06-18 · 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 perineal care (washing the genital and anal areas of the body) for three residents (Residents #69, #77, and #137) out of seven sampled residents. The facility failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and proper infection control practices when accessing the Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC - a thin, soft, flexible tube that is placed in a vein that leads to the heart) for one resident (Resident #1) out of three sampled residents. The facility failed to maintain infection control practices during saline flush administration via a gastrostomy tube (G-tube - a surgically placed tube that provides direct access to the stomach for feeding, fluids, or medications) for one resident (Resident #7) out of one sampled resident. The facility's census was 169. Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated January 2026, showed:- Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP)…
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 · D2026-06-18 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, side rails and trapeze (an overhead assistive device with a suspended triangular handle) as part of a regular maintenance program for seven residents (Residents #8, #16, #84, #155, #162, #172, and #173) out of 33 sampled residents. The facility's census was 169. Review of the facility's policy, Bed Rails, revised 06/20, showed: - Before installing a bed rail, the facility must assess the resident for the risk of entrapment from bed rails and ensure the bed's dimensions are appropriate for the resident's size and weight. The manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installing and maintaining bed rails will be followed; - Maintenance/Designee will assess the bed dimensions no less than quarterly by utilizing Maintenance Inspection Checklist- Resident Rooms. Maintenance will also check bed rails regularly to ensure they are still installed correctly, as rails may shift or loosen over time. 1. Review of Resident #8's medical record 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 · D2025-04-11 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a baseline care plan (the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the resident) upon admission with specific interventions needed to care for resident, and failed to assure the resident and/or guardian received a written summary of the baseline care plan for two residents (Resident #151 and #261) out of 32 sampled residents. The facility's census was 161. Review of the facility's policy, Care Plans, dated 01/15, showed: - Each resident will have a plan of care to identify problems, needs, and strengths that will identify how the team will provide care; - Responsibility of the nurse monitored by the Executive Director; - The Care Plan will be developed within two days; - The team along with the resident and/or family members will identify services needed, preferences, and ability and care level guidelines. 1. Review of Resident #151's medical record showed: - admitted on [DATE]; - Diagnoses of congenital malformation of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-11 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to appropriately assess the use of bed rails for three residents (Resident #107, #133, and #462) of 32 sampled residents. The facility's census was 161. Review of the facility's policy titled, Side Rail Use Evaluation, dated 02/25, showed: - The resident's risk for entrapment should be assessed prior to installation of bed rails; - Complete the Side Rail Evaluation form; - Documentation should contain alternatives prior to implementation of any type of rail(s), risk and benefits reviewed with the resident or resident representative, and informed consent obtained from the resident or resident representative. 1. Review of Resident #107's medical record showed: - admitted on [DATE]; - Diagnoses of displaced fracture (two or more portions of broken bone come out of proper alignment) of second cervical (neck) vertebra (series of small bones forming the backbone), burst fracture (a serious spinal injury where the vertebra shatters and breaks 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 · Dcited before2025-04-11 · 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 tracheostomy (surgical opening in the neck used to provide airway for breathing) care and g-tube (a medical device that delivers liquid nutrition directly to the stomach or small intestine through a flexible tube) medication administration for one resident (Resident #20) out of 32 sampled residents. The facility failed to maintain infection control practices when staff failed to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE) for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for two residents (Resident #20 and #97) out of 32 sampled residents. The facility's census was 161. Review of the facility's policy, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 04/24, showed: - EBP are indicated for residents with infections or colonization with a CDC-targeted MDRO when contact precautions do not apply or for resident with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices without secretions/excretions that are unable to be covered/contained and are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-01 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by the facility staff) for three residents (Resident #16, #30, and #56) out of 32 sampled residents. The facility census was 159. Review of the facility's policy, MDS Assessment, revised June 2023, showed: - The facility shall conduct interdisciplinary assessments using the MDS item sets as defined by Federal/State regulations; - These regulations provide information on the resident's condition to facilitate development of an individualized plan of care as a means by which the facility can track changes in a resident's status; - The interdisciplinary team as designated will complete specific portions of the MDS. The registered nurse (RN) designated by the facility will assure that all disciplines have completed their portion of the MDS; - The interdisciplinary team member's signatures in Z0400 will attest to completion/accuracy of the assessment. 1. Review…
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 · D2024-03-01 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for three residents (Resident #30, #48, and #55) out of 32 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to keep any resident on a psychoactive medication from receiving the lowest possible dosage of medication due to not monitoring if a medication is treating the target symptom. The facility census was 159. Review of the facility's policy titled, Behavior Management and Psychopharmacological Medication Monitoring Protocol, revised March 2018, showed: - Residents who receive antipsychotic, anti-depressant, sedative/hypnotic, or anti-anxiety medications are to be maintained at the safest, lowest dosage necessary to manage the resident's condition; - Residents will be reviewed routinely for effectiveness and monitored for side effects of these medications and will receive gradual dose reductions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these drugs; - There will be an established Behavior Management Committee that will meet routinely to review all residents…
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 · D2024-03-01 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose 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 dumpsters were closed at all times and maintained to keep pests out and/or to keep the garbage contained in the dumpster. The facility census was 159. The facility did not provide a policy regarding the dumpsters. Observations of two dumpsters, both with two lids, at the right side of the front entrance showed: - On 02/27/24 at 9:30 A.M., the dumpster on the left had both lids opened with visible trash bags, cardboard boxes, and other miscellaneous items; - On 02/28/24 at 4:00 P.M., the dumpster on the left had one lid opened with visible trash bags and other miscellaneous items; - On 02/29/24 at 8:10 A.M., the dumpster on the right had one lid opened. During an interview on 02/29/24 at 12:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said housekeeping, dietary staff, and the night shift Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) are the people responsible for taking garbage out to the dumpsters and the dumpsters are emptied six days a week. During an interview on 02/29/24 at 2:45 P.M., the Dietary Manager said trash dumpster…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 70% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 265216. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-18, 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.