Baptist Homes Of Arcadia Valley
101 Riggs-Scott Lane, Ironton, MO 63650 · Non profit - Church related · 36 certified beds · (573) 546-7429 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
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 | Not rated |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | Not rated |
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 | Not rated |
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 2026-03 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.4% | 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 | 0.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 18.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.5% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.6% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.6% | 90.9% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.2% | 17.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.4% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.45 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.84 | 2.33 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
Staffing
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
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.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-07 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan (QAPI - a written plan containing the process that will guide the facility's efforts in assuring care and services are maintained at acceptable levels of performance and continually improved.) The facility census was 25. Review showed the facility did not have a QAPI plan containing the necessary policies and protocols describing how they will identify and correct their quality deficiencies, track and measure performance, and establish goals and thresholds for performance measurement. During an interview on 03/07/25 at 9:11 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she just started in January 2025, and found no documentation of a previous QAPI Plan. She was trying to get everything together but did not have anything in place yet.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-07 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespreadSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance/Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAA/QAPI - a written plan containing the process that will guide the facility's efforts in assuring care and services are maintained at acceptable levels of performance and continually improved) committee developed and implemented an appropriate plan of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 25. The facility did not provide a policy for a QAPI Plan or Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs). Review showed no documentation the facility maintained the minimum required documentation for a QAPI plan or PIPs. During an interview on 03/07/25 at 9:11 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said there was no documentation the facility had a QAPI Plan or PIPs in place. The facility was currently trying to get everything in place.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-07 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain quarterly Quality Assurance and Improvement Program (QAPI - a written plan containing the process that will guide the facility's efforts in assuring care and services are maintained at acceptable levels of performance and continually improved) committee meetings with the required members. The facility census was 25. The facility did not provide a policy or any documentation related to QAPI. Review showed no documentation the facility maintained the minimum required quarterly QAA meetings with the required members. During an interview on 03/07/25 at 9:11 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility did not have a QAPI policy and procedure. There was not a QA committee at this time. There was no documentation to review.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-07 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespreadImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program (ICIP) that included an antibiotic stewardship program. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 25. Review of the facility's policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship, revised December 2016, showed: - Antibiotics will be prescribed and administered to residents under the guidance of the facility's antibiotic stewardship program; - The purpose of our antibiotic stewardship program is to monitor the use of antibiotics in our residents. Review of the facility's policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship - Review and Surveillance of Antibiotic Use and Outcomes, revised December 2016, showed: - Antibiotic usage and outcome data will be collected and documented using a facility-approved antibiotic surveillance tracking form. The data will be used to guide decisions for improvement of individual resident antibiotic prescribing practices and facility-wide antibiotic stewardship; - As part of the facility antibiotic…
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 · E2025-03-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to maintain appropriate infection control practices by not performing proper hand hygiene and glove changing techniques during wound care for two residents (Residents #5 and 13) out of two sampled residents and during catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) care for one resident (Resident #13) out of two sampled residents. The facility also failed to correctly screen five residents (Residents #4, #8, #13, #17, and #20) for tuberculosis (TB - an infectious disease characterized by the growth of nodules in the tissues, especially the lungs) out of five sampled residents required by state regulation 19 CSR 20-20.100. The facility census was 25. The facility did not provide an infection control policy. Review of the facility policy titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, revised September 2014, showed: - The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections; - Place the clean equipment on the bedside stand or overbed table; - Wash and dry your hands thoroughly; -…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of communication between the facility and the dialysis (a process for removing waste and excess water from the blood) center for one resident (Resident #2) out of one sampled resident. The facility census was 25. Review of the facility's policy titled, Dialysis Care, undated, showed: - Adequately assess resident needs and provide care goals which achieve the highest practicable level of care to residents with end stage renal disease receiving dialysis; - Risk factors related to potential for bleeding, alterations in fluid volume, potential for infection, alteration in nutrition, skin integrity, risk for adverse medication effects and psychosocial needs should be identified, assessed and interventions to manage addressed in the individualized care plan; - An individual care plan should be developed and followed in coordination with the comprehensive assessment. 1. Review of Resident #2's Physician's Order Sheet (POS), dated March…
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 · D2025-03-07 · 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 limit the use of an as needed (PRN) order for psychotropic (medications that affect how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behaviors) medication to 14 days for two residents (Residents #8 and#11) out of four sampled residents. The facility census was 24. The facility did not provide a policy for PRN psychotropic medication use. 1. Review of Resident #8's March 2025 Physician Order Sheet (POS) showed: - Diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration), dementia (a disorder marked by memory loss, personality changes, and impaired reasoning that interferes with daily functioning) with other behavioral disturbance, and cognitive communication deficit; - An order for lorazepam (an antianxiety medication) 0.5 milligram (mg) by mouth every two hours PRN for anxiety, dated 02/25/25, with no stop date; - The facility failed to provide a 14 day stop date order for the lorazepam PRN order. 2. Review of Resident #11's March 2025 POS showed: - Diagnoses of mild cognitive…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 an error rate of less than five percent (%) during medication administration. There were 30 opportunities with four errors made, for an error rate of 13.33%, which affected four residents (Residents #2, #5, #13, and #17) out of 16 sampled residents. The facility's census was 24. The facility did not provide a policy in regards to insulin administration. Review of the facility instruction sheet, Priming Insulin Pens Quick Reference, undated, showed: - Every insulin pen requires priming with each injection. Doing so ensures the correct amount of insulin is given to the patient. It removes air from the needle and cartridge that can collect during normal use and confirms the pen is working correctly. - Fiasp (insulin aspart - a rapid-acting insulin) dial two units when priming; - Lispro (Humalog - a rapid acting insulin) dial two units when priming, recommended to hold the dose button down five second when priming. Review of the Fiasp Flex Touch Pen Instructions, revised July 2023, showed: - To prime 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.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABBOTT, JEANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| ABBOTT, KENNETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| CAMPBELL, BEVERLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| CANTERBERRY, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| CULBERTSON, TROY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2026 |
| DE NOON, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| FABER, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| GOOD, DERRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| HARDER, KENETTE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| HARDY, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| HOLDSWORTH, LEAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| LACKEY, KATHRYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| LANE, ALLAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| LOYD, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| MARTIN, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| MATHER, BREANNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| NEWBOLD, BRAD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| NICHOLS, LLOYD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| PERKINS, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| SMITH, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| STUNKEL, LEIDRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| TUNNELL, WENDY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/28/2025 |
| BURKE, EDWARD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| STILES, DANIEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 24 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.
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 265891. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-07, 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.