La Belle Manor Care Center
1002 Central, La Belle, MO 63447 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 94 certified beds · (660) 213-3234 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (69%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.6% | 18.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 5.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.8% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| 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 | 8.1% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.5% | 17.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.1% | 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 | 16.0% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.6% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.1% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.8% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 22.4% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.37 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.34 | 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.
48.7% 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 52 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.6% 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 22 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 48.7%CMS range 35.6–63.1 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 6.5–14.8 | 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 | 63.6% | 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 | 63.6% | 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 | 68.2% | 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 | 91.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.8% | 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 | 8.1%CMS range 4.9–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.77 | 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 94 beds and averages 40.5 residents a day — about 43% occupied, or roughly 54 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.27 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.23 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.99 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.34 to 0.09 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 69% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-30 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 completed by staff, according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual for three sampled residents (Resident #4, #8 and #20), in a review of 13 sampled residents. The facility census was 35. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, version 1.18.11, dated October 2023, showed the following: -Medicare and Medicaid participating long-term care facilities are required to conduct comprehensive, accurate, standardized and reproducible assessments of each resident's functional capacity and health status; -The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements. Federal regulations require that (1) the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status (2) a registered nurse conducts or coordinates each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals (3) the assessment process includes direct observation, as well as communication 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 · Ecited before2025-05-30 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for four residents (Resident #3, #10, #14 and #26), in a review of 13 residents. The facility census was 35. Review of the undated facility policy, Comprehensive Care Plan Policy, showed the following: -A comprehensive care plan is a detailed document outlining a resident's agreed-upon goals of care and the planned activities for their medical, nursing and allied health care. It reflects shared decisions made with the resident, their caregivers and family, about tests, interventions, treatments and other activities needed to achieve these goals. This plan is a dynamic, living document that's updated as the resident's condition changes, ensuring all healthcare team members are informed of the latest critical information; -Key aspects of a comprehensive care plan: a. Resident-centered: the plan prioritizes the resident's goals and preferences, reflecting their individual needs and wishes; b.…
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 · E2025-05-30 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 update and revise problems and interventions on resident care plans to reflect current care needs for three residents (Resident #10, #4 and #1) in a sample of 13 residents and failed to include Resident #20's responsible party and Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) in his/her care planning decision making. The facility census was 35. Review of the undated facility policy, Resident Plan of Care, showed the following: -It is the policy of the facility to initiate a resident's plan of care on admission, by charge nurse, that is located in the electronic health record; -The MDS Coordinator follows electronic health record for date of plan of care to be completed. The facility did not provide a care plan revisions policy. 1. Review of Resident #10's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument required to be completed by facility staff, dated 02/23/25, showed the following: -Cognitively intact; -Diagnoses included…
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 · E2025-05-30 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — patternProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services as recommended to assist one resident (Resident #3), in a review of 13 residents, and two additional residents (Resident #18 and #24), with mobility and/or limited range of motion (ROM) to attain or maintain their highest level of functioning. The facility census was 35. Review of the undated facility policy, Restorative Nursing Program Policy, showed the following: -Non-skilled rehabilitation: Restorative nursing provides non-skilled rehabilitative care with focus on maintaining or improving daily living skills; -Restorative aides and nurses must be trained. Registered nurses (RNs) or licensed practical nurses (LPNs) will provide supervision; -Daily documentation of restorative activities is required. Specific interventions and time spent must be documented; -The program needs to be reviewed and adjusted as needed. The RN/LPN typically review monthly and the resident care team review quarterly. 1.…
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 · E2025-05-30 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess seven residents (Residents #10, #3, #20, #189, #9, #36, and #35), in a review of 13 sampled residents, for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation, and failed to review the risk and benefits of the bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain consent prior to installation. The facility census was 35. Review of the Food and Drug Administration's Guide of Bed Safety, Bed Rails in Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Home Health Care: The Facts, revised April 2010, showed the following: -Patients who have problems with memory, sleeping, incontinence, pain, uncontrolled body movement, or who get out of bed and walk unsafely without assistance, must be carefully assessed for the best ways to keep them from harm, such as falling; -Assessment by the patient's health care team will help to determine how best to keep the patient safe; -Potential risks of bed rails may include strangling, suffocating, bodily…
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 · E2025-05-30 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure 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 ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent (%). Out of 27 opportunities observed, 10 errors occurred, resulting in a 37.0% error rate, which affected one resident (Resident #10) in a review of of 13 sampled residents and three additional residents (Resident #15, #32 and #28). The facility census was 35. Review of the facility's undated policy, titled Policy for Medication Administration, showed it did not address crushing medications. Review of the facility's undated policy, Insulin Pen Usage, showed before each use, prime the pen to remove air bubbles and ensure a clear needle. Review of the Humalog Kwik pen package insert showed if you do not prime the insulin pen before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin. Turn the dose knob to select two units, hold the pen with the needle pointed up, tap the cartridge holder gently to collect air bubbles at the top, push the dose knob in until it stops and 0 is seen in the dose window. Hold the dose knob in and count to five slowly. You…
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 · E2025-05-30 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to timely destroy expired medications. The facility census was 35. 1. Observation of the licensed nurses medication cart on 05/28/25 at 2:30 P.M. showed the following: -One bottle of ketoconazole 2% shampoo labeled for Resident #3, had an expiration date of 12/2022; -One tube of Aspercreme (topical pain relief cream), labeled for Resident #6, had an expiration date of 03/2025; -One bottle of Murine ear drops (wax removal drops), labeled for Resident #2, had an expiration date of 08/2024; -One stock (facility's supply) tube of hydrocortisone 1% cream had an expiration date of 03/25; -One stock bottle of nystatin powder (an antifungal medication) had an expiration date of 09/30/23; -One stock bottle of stoma adhesive had an expiration date of 02/01/25; -One stock tube of Aspercreme had an expiration date of 12/2024. During an interview on 05/28/25 at 3:00 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) K said the charge nurses check the licensed nurses cart for outdated medications randomly. During an interview on 05/30/25 at 1:13 P.M., 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-30 · 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 failed to maintain two of two ice machines free of a buildup of debris; failed to ensure refrigerated food items were covered, labeled and dated; and failed to ensure trash cans were covered when not in use. The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the facility policy, Ice Handling and Cleaning, dated 2020, showed the following: -Guideline: Ice will be stored and served to residents in a sanitary manner; -Ice will be handled, transported and stored to protect against contamination; -Ice machine will be wiped down daily with sanitizer; -Ice machine will be emptied at least quarterly and thoroughly cleaned with an approved sanitizer to remove any settlement or mineral buildup in the ice discharge area and the floor of the machine. Observation on 5/27/25 at 9:49 A.M. of the kitchen ice machine showed black debris and reddish rusty-colored debris visible inside the unit along the door hinge over the ice stored below. The exhaust vent on the exterior of the unit had a heavy buildup of dark fuzzy debris on the rear vent…
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 · E2025-05-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the facility's policy to address Legionella (a bacterium that can cause a serious type of pneumonia called Legionnaires' Disease (a bacterial disease commonly associated with water-based aerosols) in persons at risk) control that included specific control parameters based on Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards and failed to implement a water management team and parameters for findings related to water monitoring. The facility failed to ensure nursing staff performed appropriate hand hygiene during care for two residents (Residents #2 and #189), in a review of 13 sampled residents, and for two additional residents (Resident #23 and #31), failed to utilize Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (infection control measures designed to reduce the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in nursing homes and other…
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 · E2025-05-30 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — patternRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to develop and consistently implement a regular maintenance program, including routine inspections of bed frames, mattresses and bed rails, to identify areas of possible entrapment for seven residents (Resident #10, #3, #20, #189, #9,#36, and #35), in a review of 13 sampled residents. The facility census was 35. The facility did not have a policy related to risk of entrapment with resident beds. Review of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Guide to Bed Safety, Bed Rails in Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Home Health Care: The Facts, revised April 2010, showed the following: -Between 1985 and 1/1/09, 803 incidents of patients getting caught, trapped, entangled or strangled in beds with rails were reported to the U.S. FDA; -Of those reported, 480 died and 138 had non-fatal injuries; -Most patients were frail, elderly or confused; -Potential risks of bed rails may include strangulation, suffocation, bodily injury or death when patients or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-30 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change in status assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool required to be completed by facility staff, for two residents (Resident #8 and #20) in a review of 13 sampled residents. This assessment should have been completed within 14 days after the facility determined, or should have determined, there had been a significant change (a decline or improvement in two or more assessed areas of resident status) in the resident's physical or mental condition which had an impact on more than one area of the resident's health status, and required interdisciplinary review and/or revisions of the care plan. The facility census was 35. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.18.11, Chapter 2, revised October 2023, showed the following: -The SCSA is a comprehensive MDS assessment for a resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-30 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #438), in a review of fifteen sampled residents, received his/her divalproex sodium delayed release (DR) (a medication to treat epilepsy and mood disorders) medication in the proper form, when staff crushed and administered the medication. Further review showed Certified Medication Technician (CMT) A entered an order to crush the resident's medications without consulting the charge nurse, Director of Nursing, or the physician. The facility census was 36.Review of the facility's undated policy, titled Policy for Medication Administration, showed it did not address crushing medications.Review of the facility's policy, Policy for following Physician Orders, revised 08/29/24, showed the policy did not address who could obtain and enter physician orders. 1. Review of drugs.com for divalproex sodium DR showed the following:-Swallow the capsule or tablet whole and do not crush, chew, break, or open it;-Not all medications are suitable for crushing. Drugs that should not be crushed 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 · D2025-05-30 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #10), in a review of 13 sampled residents, and one additional resident (Resident # 15) who received insulin injections, were free from significant medication errors. Staff failed to prime (remove the air from the needle and cartridge) the Humalog Kwik pen (prefilled pen of fast acting insulin (medication injected under the skin used to treat diabetes)) and Fiasp FlexTouch pen (prefilled pen of fast acting insulin) needle as instructed by the manufacturer prior to administration of the medication, potentially affecting the amount of insulin dispensed with each dose. The facility census was 35. Review of the facility's undated policy, Insulin Pen Usage, showed before each use, prime the pen to remove air bubbles and ensure a clear needle. Review of the Humalog Kwik pen package insert showed if you do not prime the insulin pen before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin. Turn the dose knob to select two units, hold the pen with the needle pointed up, tap 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-15 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #7), of nine sampled residents,was free from physical restraints after the resident presented with verbal behaviors. Staff forced the resident to sit in a wheelchair by physically pushing the resident down into a wheelchair when the resident refused to walk to his/her room. The resident was normally able to ambulate independently. Once in the wheelchair, staff physically removed the resident's hands when the resident held onto the wheels of the chair to prevent staff from moving him/her. Staff placed footrests on the wheelchair when the resident used his/her feet to prevent the chair from moving so that staff could transport the resident to his/her room. The facility census was 41. The facility did not provide a policy on physical restraints upon request. 1. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument, completed by facility staff, dated 2/23/24, showed the following: -The resident was cognitively intact; -No behaviors present; -He/She…
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 · D2024-11-15 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #7) with a developmental delay and learning disability, in a review of nine sampled residents, received person centered interventions to address behaviors affecting others that did not make the resident feel like staff were treating him/her like a child. Staff told the resident to go to his/her room when the resident displayed disruptive behaviors. The staff physically took the resident to his/her room even when the resident refused instead of attempting other interventions to address the resident's behaviors. The facility census was 41. The facility did not provide a policy on providing care and services for residents with behavioral issues upon request. 1. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument, completed by facility staff, dated 2/23/24, showed the following: -The resident was cognitively intact; -No behaviors present; -He/She was independent with ambulation; -Diagnoses of epilepsy (chronic brain disorder that causes repeated…
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 · E2023-08-30 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to timely complete the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 3 (Residents #21, #34, and #36) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. Findings included: A review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2019, specified, The admission assessment is a comprehensive assessment for a new resident and, under some circumstances, a returning resident that must be completed by the end of day 14, counting the date of admission to the nursing home as day if: - this is the resident's first time in this facility, OR, - the resident has been admitted to this facility and was discharged return not anticipated, OR - the resident has been admitted to this facility and was discharged return anticipated and did not return within 30 days of discharge. A review of Resident #21's medical record indicated the facility readmitted the resident on 03/30/2023. A review of Resident #21's admission MDS with an Assessment…
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 · E2023-08-30 · tag F0638 — patternAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 (Residents #21, #34, and #36) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. Findings included: A review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2019, specified, The Quarterly assessment is an OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA assessment of any type. It is used to track a resident's status between comprehensive assessments to ensure critical indicators of gradual change in a resident's status are monitored. A review of Resident #21's medical record indicated the facility readmitted the resident on 03/30/2023. A review of Resident #21's medical record revealed the last completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) was an admission MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/06/2023. A review of Resident #34's admission…
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 before2023-08-30 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff developed a care plan to address the needs of 3 (Residents #21, #36, and #140) of 12 sampled residents. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Plan of Care Policy & Procedures, revised 05/18/2023, revealed, It is the Policy of [facility name] 1) To initiate Residents plan of care on admission by Charge Nurse, and placed in careplan binder located at each nursing desk for Charge Nurse and C.N.A. [certified nursing assistant] access to insure resident getting needs met. 1. A review of Resident #36's admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #36 on 03/28/2023, with diagnoses including dementia with psychotic disturbance and anxiety disorder. A review of Resident #36's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/10/2023, indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #36…
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 before2020-01-10 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the range hood was free of grease and debris; failed to ensure the can opener was clean and free of an accumulation of food debris; and failed to ensure trash cans in the kitchen were covered when not in use. The facility census was 52. 1. Observation on 1/7/19 at 12:29 P.M. showed the range hood had three baffle filters with a heavy buildup of dark fuzzy debris and a moderate buildup of clear and yellow grease. Further observation showed a heavy accumulation of dark fuzzy debris on the fire suppression piping and nozzles under the range hood. Strands of dark fuzzy debris hung off the fire suppression system piping and blew in the breeze of the range hood exhaust system. Review of the range hood sticker on the exterior of the hood on 1/7/19 at 2:59 P.M. showed the hood had previously been professionally cleaned 4/10/19. During an interview on 1/7/19 at 3:20 P.M., Dietary Staff A said maintenance staff was supposed to clean the baffle filters. Maintenance staff took them outside, hosed them off and put…
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 · D2020-01-10 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed follow their policy by not notifying the state agency of an injury of unknown origin for one resident (Resident #200), in a review of 13 sampled residents. The facility census was 52. 1. Review of the facility's undated policy Abuse Prevention Policy, showed the facility must ensure all alleged violations of mistreatment, neglect, abuse, injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property are immediately reported to the facility administrator and to other officials in accordance with state law through established procedures (including the state survey and certification agency). If serious bodily injury to a resident resulted, a report must be made immediately and not later than two hours after forming the suspicion. The facility must report the suspicion and not wait until confirmed with an investigative process. The facility must have evidence all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated, and must prevent further potential abuse while the investigation is in progress. The results of the all…
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 · C2025-05-30 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 post required nurse staffing information, which included the resident census and total actual hours worked by both licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care, per shift on a daily basis. The facility census was 35. Review of the facility's undated policy, Posting Daily Staffing, showed the following: -The direct care staff for the facility shall be posted daily across from the nursing desk between the Southeast and Southwest hall; -The charge nurse shall complete this at the beginning of each shift; -The number of each category shall be posted along with the actual hours worked and the census for each shift; -The completed forms shall be given to Director of Nursing to keep for at least 18 months. 1. Review of the facility daily staffing sheets for nursing staff for May 2025 showed the following: -On 05/01/25, the daily staffing sheet for nursing staff did not include the number of staff or actual hours worked for registered nurse (RN), licensed practical nurse (LPN),…
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LABELLE MANOR INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 6% | since 05/06/2009 |
| STRANGE-PINSON, DEBORAH | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/22/2009 |
| BRADSHAW, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/26/2009 |
| FREEMAN, RODNEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/15/2022 |
| RENOT, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/15/2022 |
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.
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.
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 265646. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-30, 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.