Wilshire At Lakewood Rehab Center
600 N E Meadowview Drive, Lees Summit, MO 64064 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 170 certified beds · (816) 554-9866 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567, F0570)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (34) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (66%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 24% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 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 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 whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.3% | 18.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.3% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.9% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 97.0% | 18.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.5% | 4.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.3% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.0% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 58.8% | 90.9% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.9% | 17.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.0% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 14.8% | 63.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.9% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.4% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.90 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.22 | 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.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.3% 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 121 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.2% 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 134 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 51.3%CMS range 43.7–57.6 | 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 | 12.4%CMS range 9.2–16.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 55.2% | 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 | 57.5% | 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 | 44.0% | 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 | 98.9% | 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 | 98.3% | 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 | 96.5% | 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 | 0.5% | 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 | 5.4% | 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 | 7.7%CMS range 4.6–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 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 170 beds and averages 131.7 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 38 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.43 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.11 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 3.03 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.59 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 66% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
34 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2022-03-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 complete fall investigations and put individualized interventions in place for one sampled resident (Resident #20) who sustained a cervical fracture (a broken bone in the neck region of the spine) from a fall on 1/22/22; and to complete fall investigations and put individualized interventions in place for one sampled resident (Resident # 87) who sustained a left first (big) toe fracture (broken) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility's Falls- Clinical Protocol policy, revised March 2018 showed: -The physician will help identify residents with a history of falls and risk factors for falling. -Staff will ask the resident and the caregiver or family about a history of falling. -The staff and physician will document in the medical record a history of one or more recent falls (for example within 90 days). -While many falls are isolated resident incidents, a few residents fall repeatedly;…
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 before2025-11-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of Legionella (A [NAME] of pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria that includes the species L. pneumophila, causing legionellosis, all illnesses caused by Legionella, including a pneumonia-type illness called Legionnaires' disease and a mild flu-like illness called Pontiac fever) and/or other water-borne pathogens (a bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease) that included specific assessments and contents, in accordance with State of Missouri rules and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) standards and guidelines. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents, visitors, volunteers, and staff who resided, visited, used, or worked in the facility; the facility failed to ensure appropriate barrier placement when…
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 before2025-11-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards for one sample resident (Resident #5) when staff taped the resident's ileostomy (a surgical procedure that creates an opening in the abdominal wall through which the last part of the small intestine, called the ileum, is brought to the surface of the body) bag shut instead of using a clip and for one sampled resident (Resident #70) when staff failed to correct an order entry error related to weighing the resident daily and documenting the daily weights out of 31 sampled residents. The facility census was 122 residents.Review of the facility's policy titled Nutrition/Hydration Management dated 10/24/22 showed:-Residents were weighed upon admission and re-admission and then at least weekly for four weeks and then monthly if weight is stable.-Based on clinical judgement licensed nurses weigh residents as needed based on clinical presentation.Review of the facility's policy titled Ileostomy Care dated 10/24/22…
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 · D2025-11-18 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident's (Resident #147) physician's order for no cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR - any medical intervention used to restore circulatory and/or respiratory function that has ceased) was followed when the resident was found not breathing and having no heart beat out of 31 sampled residents. The facility census was 122 residents.1. The Administrator was notified on [DATE] of past non-Compliance which occurred on [DATE]. The facility had completed an internal investigation and had in-serviced all staff on [DATE]. The past non-compliance was corrected on [DATE]. Review of the facility Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) policy dated [DATE], showed:-CPR is instituted (started) in cases of recognized cardiac arrest (the heart has stopped) and/or pulmonary arrest (breathing has stopped) to sustain or support a resident's cardiac and/or breathing function until medical emergency personnel are available to take over the resuscitation…
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 before2025-11-18 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff were adequately documenting supplement usage for one sampled resident (Resident #5) out of 31 sampled residents. The facility census was 122 residents.Review of the facility policy titled Nutrition/Hydration Management dated 10/24/22 showed:-A resident was assessed for nutrition/hydration status by nursing during the admission process.-A comprehensive care plan would be developed by the interdisciplinary team that addressed nutrition/hydration and an individualized nutrition/hydration management program based on individualized assessed needs. -The nutrition/hydration management program may address the following:--The factors contributing to actual or potential causes for inadequate nutrition or hydration status.--Specific modification in the resident's meal plan including food from outside of the facility and/or special food activities.--Use of supplemental vitamins and/or minerals.--Weight frequency.1. Review of Resident #5'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 · D2025-11-18 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure two sampled residents (Resident #17 and #149) who were fed by enteral (a form of nutrition that is delivered into the digestive system as a liquid) means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding by failing to assess the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG tube) a tube that is placed into a patient's stomach as a means of feeding them when they are unable to eat) for placement out of 31 sampled and five supplemental residents. The facility census was 122. Review of facility policy entitled Feeding Tube-Administration of Medication revised 10/24/22 showed:-Check for tube placement by checking residual.--If residual is greater than 100 milliliters (ml), withhold medications.--Reattempt administration of medications in one hour.--If residual of 100 ml or greater is obtained, hold medications and notify Attending Physician for further instructions. -Re-instill any gastric…
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 · D2025-11-18 · 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 ensure a medication error rate under five percent (%) for one supplemental resident (Resident #149) out of five supplemental residents. Two medication errors were detected out of 28 observed opportunities resulting in an error rate of 7.14 %. The facility census was 122 residents.Review of the facility's policy titled Feeding Tube-Administration of Medication dated 10/24/22 showed staff needed to verify that medication cups were clear of any remnants of crushed pills or liquid medication. 1. Review of Resident #149's admission Record showed the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of gastrostomy (G-tube: surgical procedure that creates an opening in the stomach through the abdominal wall).Review of the resident's Order Summary Report dated September 2025 showed:-An order for staff to check residual and measure every shift if over 50 milliliters(ml) during feeding, medication administration, or flushes, then staff were to call the physician.-An order for staff to flush the G-tube with 30 ml…
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 · D2025-11-18 · 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 properly contain waste and refuse in outdoor dumpsters, to prevent the harboring and/or feeding of pests. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents, visitors, volunteers, and staff who resided, visited, used, or worked in the facility and/or ate food from the kitchen. This facility had a census of 122 residents with a licensed capacity of 170 residents at the time of the survey.1. Observation on 9/15/25 between 11:43 A.M. and 2:41 P.M. during the initial Life Safety Code (LSC) facility outer perimeter inspection showed the following:-The south lid of the south dumpster outside the Service Hall was flipped back completely open.-The facility itself had large, wooded areas on the north and west sides. Observation on 9/17/25 at 11:44 A.M. during the LSC facility walk-through inspection with the Director Plant Operations (DPO) showed outside the Service Hall the south dumpster had both its lids flipped back open and the north dumpster had its north lid flipped back. Observation on 9/17/25 at 1:09 P.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-11-21 · 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 keep the walk-in refrigerator, and walk-in freezer floors clean; to maintain sanitary food preparation equipment; to keep trash dumpsters lidded; to follow correct hair hygiene practices; and to store foodstuffs within acceptable temperature parameters, in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. These deficient practices had the potential to affect all residents, visitors, volunteers, and staff who ate food from the kitchen. The facility's census was 123 residents with a licensed capacity for 170 residents at the time of the survey. 1. Observation on 11/13/23 between 9:01 A.M. and 10:57 A.M. during the initial kitchen inspection showed the following: -There was a sticky substance on the manual can opener blade by the microwave and also on the one by the Dry Storage (DS) room. -A black handled knife in the holder by the microwave had a broken tip and two reddish stains on the blade. -There were numerous crumbs underneath the conveyer toaster unit on a food preparation table. -There were…
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 · E2023-11-21 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain written authorizations from residents or their representatives to hold, manage, safeguard, and account for their funds for 6 sampled residents (Residents #17, #45, #51, #59, #65, and #87) out of 44 residents who had an account in the Resident Trust Fund (RTF) in accordance with standard accounting practices and principles, as required by Federal regulations and the State of Missouri statutes. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who held an account in the facility's resident trust. The facility census was 123 residents with a licensed capacity for 170 residents at the time of the survey. Review of the facility's 4-page RTF policy entitled Resident Funds - Handling & Recording, revised 5/1/23 and provided by the Business Office Manager (BOM), showed at point II.A., under the heading Procedure, that When a resident elects to have the Facility manage the resident's personal funds, the resident or resident representative must sign a written statement authorizing the Facility to manage 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 before2023-11-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 Activities of Daily Living (ADL), bathing/showering, for two sampled residents (Resident #107 and #64) and to provide bathing for for one sampled resident (Resident #37) out of 25 sampled residents by not providing scheduled baths or showers, causing poor hygiene. The facility census was 125 residents. Review of the facility's Showering a Resident policy, dated 10/24/22, showed: -A bath/shower was given to the residents to provide cleanliness, comfort and to prevent body odor. -Residents were offered a shower a minimum of once weekly and given per resident request. -Report any broken skin, bruises, rashes, cut, skin discoloration or reddened areas to the charge nurse. -Update the resident's care plan as needed. -Note: No procedure for documentation of bathing/showering and/or resident refusal was noted. 1. Review of Resident #107's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility…
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 23 citations
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the narcotic count was correct by not ensuring two nurses were counting the narcotic medications at the beginning and end of each shift, and signing at the time the nurses counted the medications; to ensure nurses were not pre-signing the medication count sheet before counting with the second nurse; to ensure the two nurses verified the amount in the medication container was the same amount that was on the medication sheet for three sampled residents, (Resident #109, #19, and #114), and to ensure there were no expired medications out of 25 sampled residents. The facility census was 123 residents. Review of the facility's Medication Storage-Controlled Medication storage dated 11/'17 showed: -Medications included in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classification as controlled substances are subject to special handling, storage, disposal and record keeping in the nursing care center in accordance with federal, state, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-21 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication carts were locked when staff was not in attendance of them, to ensure the keys to the medication cart which contained narcotics were not accessible to anyone walking by the medication cart, to ensure cleaning supplies were not in with the residents medications, to ensure other objects were not in with the residents medications, to ensure the residents prescribed medication had a date written on them after opening, and to have a policy of how to open the automated medication machine if the power went out. The facility census was 123 residents. Review of the facility's policy, Medication Storage, Controlled Medication Storage, dated 11/17 showed: -The Director of Nursing (DON) and the consultant pharmacist monitored for compliance with the federal and state laws and regulations in the handling of controlled medications. -Only authorized licensed nursing and pharmacy personnel would have access to controlled medications. -The medication nurse on duty maintained possession of the key to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-11-21 · 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 ensure urinary catheter (a tube passed through the urethra into the bladder to drain urine) tubing was kept off of the floor for one sampled resident (Resident #60) out of four residents sampled for urinary catheters and to properly screen and follow their policy for tuberculosis (TB-a communicable disease that affects especially the lungs, that is characterized by fever, cough, difficulty in breathing, abnormal lung tissue and function) for two sampled residents (Residents #10 and #218) out of five residents sampled for TB screening. This practice had the potential to affect all residents, employees and visitors to the facility. The facility census was 123 residents. Review of the facility's policy titled Tuberculosis - Screening dated as revised on 10/24/22 showed: -The facility screened referrals for admission and readmission for information regarding exposure to, or symptoms of TB and checks results of recent (within 12 months) TB skin…
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 · D2023-11-21 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review [PASRR- a federally mandated preliminary assessment to determine whether a resident may have a mental illness (MI) or an intellectual disorder (ID), to determine the level of care needed. A level I was required for all residents and a level II if the resident tested positive for any MI or ID] for two sampled residents (Residents #29 and #40) out of 25 sampled residents. The facility census was 123 residents. Record review of the facility's PASRR policy dated October 24, 2022 showed: -The Facility, as a Medicaid certified nursing facility, ensures that Level I of the PASRR is completed either by the transferring facility, upon admission, or as soon as practicable thereafter, by the Facility for all applicants, regardless of payer, to determine if they have a Mental Disorder (D) or ID. -The Facility also conducts Level I screen for current residents who have a MI or ID and experience a significant…
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 · D2023-11-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 ensure a Comprehensive Care Plan (a document describing agreed goals of care, and outlining planned medical, nursing and allied health activities for a patient) was developed and implemented for one sampled resident (Resident #29) out of 25 sampled residents. The facility census was 123 residents. Review of the facility's care plan policy dated October 24, 2022 showed: -The facility's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) will develop a Comprehensive Care Plan for each resident. -The IDT may include the following individuals: --The attending Physician. --The Resident Assessment Coordinator. --The Director of Nursing (DON). -The Care Plan will include measurable objectives and time tables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs. -Changes may be made to the Comprehensive Care Plan on an ongoing basis for the duration of the resident's stay. -The IDT will revise the Comprehensive Care Plan as needed at the following intervals: --Per…
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 · D2023-11-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to include and document participation of the resident and/or the resident's representative(s) regarding care plan development for two sampled residents (Resident #70 and Resident #61) out of 25 sampled residents. The facility census was 123 residents. Review of the facility's Care Planning policy, dated 10/24/2022, showed: -The purpose of the policy was to ensure a comprehensive person-centered Care Plan was developed for each resident based on their individual assessed needs. -The Care Plan served as a course of action where the resident, resident's family and/or guardian or other legally authorized representative, resident's attending physician, and the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) worked to help the resident move toward resident-specific goals that addressed the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs. -The Comprehensive Care Plan was prepared by the IDT team, which included: --The resident and/or his/her family or legal…
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 before2023-11-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to address one sampled resident's motion sickness (Resident #37) and to ensure one sampled resident (Resident #92) took his/her prescribed medications out of 25 sampled residents. The facility census was 123 residents. Review of the facility's policy, Medication Administration, dated October 24, 2022 showed: -Medications may be administered one hour before or after the scheduled mediation administration time. -Medications would not be left at the bedside. 1. Review of Resident #37's progress notes dated September 2023, October 2023 and November 2023 showed no documentation regarding any nausea or vomiting. Review of the resident's comprehensive Certified Nursing Assistant's (CNA) shower review sheets dated September 2023 showed: -On 9/2/23, the resident received a bed bath. -On 9/30/23, the resident received a shower. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated September 2023 showed: -A physician's order for Zofran…
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 · D2023-11-21 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
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 toenail care or an appointment with a podiatrist for one sampled resident (Resident #60) out of 25 sampled residents who had a diagnosis of diabetes (a deficiency or complete lack of insulin secretion in the pancreas or resistance to insulin) which posed a risk to foot health. The census was 123 residents. Review of the facility's policy titled Grooming care of fingernails and toenails revised 10/24/22 showed: -Residents who had diabetes would not have their toenails trimmed by Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA). -High risk residents who had toenail issues such as thick toenails or toenails with a fungal infection would be referred to a podiatrist. 1. Review of Resident #60's medical record showed no podiatry progress notes. Review of the resident's care plan dated 9/22/23 showed the resident had a diagnosis of diabetes and required limited assistance of one staff member with personal hygiene. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated assessment tool completed by…
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 before2023-11-21 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 urinary catheter (a tube passed through the urethra into the bladder to drain urine) tubing was in a safe place during a transfer for one sampled resident (Resident #60) out of four residents sampled for urinary catheters. The facility census was 123 residents. Review of the facility's catheter care policy dated as revised 10/24/22 showed instructions to ensure the catheter tubing was properly anchored to prevent urethral tear. 1. Review of Resident 60's care plan dated 9/22/23 showed the resident had a urinary catheter. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff for care planning) dated 10/4/23 showed the following staff assessment of the resident: -Cognitively intact. -Had an indwelling catheter. -Had a diagnosis of neurogenic bladder (a disorder of urinary bladder control due to damage to the spinal cord or to the nerves supplying the bladder). -Used a wheelchair. Observation and interview on 11/14/23 at 11:30 A.M. 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 · F2022-03-22 · tag F0570 — widespreadAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to produce a surety bond at an amount that sufficiently assured the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility in the Resident Trust Fund (RTF). This deficient practice had the potential to affect 64 residents who held an account in the facility's resident trust. The facility census was 92 residents with a licensed capacity for 170 residents. 1. Record review of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) Active Bonds list dated 3/3/22 and printed prior to this survey, showed this facility's RTF bond amount coverage on file at their central office was $45,000.00. During an interview on 3/16/22 at 12:33 P.M. the Business Office Manager (BOM) said that the facility's new ownership told them to disregard their bond rider letter provided that was dated 2/1/22 and stated the bond limit was raised to $71,000.00 as of 1/27/22, and that the $45,000.00 was the correct amount. Record review of the facility's various other RTF documents provided by the BOM, showed the following: -As 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 · Ecited before2022-03-22 · 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 keep the kitchen, dry storage, and walk-in refrigerator and walk-in freezer floors clean; to retain thermometers in all refrigerators to confirm adequate temperature ranges; to safeguard against foreign material possibly getting into food and/or beverages; to properly document food temperatures to ensure they were thoroughly cooked to lessen the chance of bacterial contamination; and to maintain plastic cutting boards and utensils in good condition to avoid food safety hazards. These deficient practices potentially affected all residents who ate food from the kitchen. The facility's census was 92 residents with a licensed capacity for 170. 1. Observations during the Kitchen inspections on 3/14/22 at 8:57 A.M. and at 10:47 A.M. showed the following: -On the floor under the racks in the dry storage room there was a mustard packet, a plastic cup lid, paper, and a plastic fork. -One banana in a box of bananas by the dry storage room door had an end missing and the fruit inside was blackened. -On the floor under…
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 · D2022-03-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse (the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish) to the State Agency (SA) immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation of abuse was made and to inform the State of the results of the facility's Abuse Investigation within five days for one sampled resident (Resident #34) out of 20 sampled residents or to show in their Abuse Investigation why reporting an allegation of abuse was not necessary. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility's Abuse Investigation and Reporting policy, revised July, 2017 showed: -All reports of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, mistreatment and/or injuries of unknown source shall be promptly reported to local, state and federal agencies as defined by current regulations, but no later than two hours if the alleged…
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 · D2022-03-22 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 fully investigate an allegation of abuse (the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish) and to follow the facility policy and procedure to ensure the alleged perpetrators (AP) were removed from the facility during the time of the abuse investigation for one sampled resident (Resident #34) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the resident's Abuse Prevention Program, revised December 2016 showed: -Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. -As part of resident abuse prevention the Administrator will: --Require staff training that include topics such as abuse prevention, identification and reporting, stress management, and handling verbally or physically aggressive resident behavior. --Identify and assess all possible incidents of abuse.…
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 · D2022-03-22 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure written notice was given to the resident/resident's representative prior to transfer to the hospital for one sampled resident (Resident #20) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility Transfer or Discharge Notice policy, revised December 2016 included: -The facility would provide a resident and/or the resident's representative with a thirty (30) day written notice of an impending transfer or discharge. -Under the following circumstance, the notice would be given as soon as it was practicable (able to be done or put into practice successfully) but before the resident's transfer or discharge: An immediate transfer or discharge was required by the resident's urgent medical needs. -The resident and/or representative would be notified in writing of the reason for the transfer, the effective date of the transfer, the location to which the resident was being transferred. 1. Record review of 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 · D2022-03-22 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the written bed hold policy notice was given to the resident/resident's representative prior to transfer to the hospital for one sampled resident (Resident #20) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility Transfer or Discharge Notice policy, revised December 2016 included: -The facility would provide a resident and/or the resident's representative with a thirty (30) day written notice of an impending transfer or discharge. -Under the following circumstance, the notice would be given as soon as it was practicable (able to be done or put into practice successfully) but before the resident's transfer or discharge: An immediate transfer or discharge was required by the resident's urgent medical needs. -The resident and/or representative would be notified in writing of the reason for the transfer, the effective date of the transfer, the location to which the resident was being transferred. 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 · Dcited before2022-03-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided to one sampled resident (Resident #13) who was totally dependent upon staff for fingernail care out of 20 sampled residents. The resident's long fingernails prevented the resident from using his/her fingers to push buttons on his/her telephone. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility's Supporting Activities of Daily Living policy, revised 3/2018 showed: -Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. -A resident's ability to perform ADLs will be measured using clinical tools, including the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff for care planning). 1. Record review of Resident #13's Face Sheet showed he/she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: -Rheumatoid…
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 · D2022-03-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 address one sampled resident's (Resident #49) order for and documentation of a rectal (having to do with the rectum, the last six to eight inches of the large intestine that stores solid waste until it leaves the body through the anus, the opening of the rectum to the outside of the body) treatment in the absence of documentation/assessment of the resident having a rectal wound, out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown - Clinical Protocol policy, revised April 2018 showed: -The facility staff and practitioner will examine the skin of newly admitted residents for evidence of existing pressure ulcers or other skin conditions. -The physician will order pertinent wound treatments. -During resident visits, the physician will evaluate and document the progress of wound healing. -Current approaches should be reviewed for whether they remain pertinent to the resident'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 · D2022-03-22 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the weekly skin assessments were completed and signed by the nurse performing, that wound assessments were completed with measurements and description, and ordered treatments were performed for one sampled resident (Resident #251) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. On 3/22/22 the Administrator was notified of the past noncompliance. On 2/9/22 the facility administrator discovered skin and wound assessments and wound treatment documentation was missing, and an audit was started. On 2/21/22 a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was started, and nursing staff were inserviced regarding documentation of treatments, weekly skin assessments, reporting of wounds, and wound documentation, including measurements and description of wounds. The deficiency was corrected on 2/25/22. Record review of the facility's policy titled Pressure Ulcer/Skin Breakdown-Clinical Protocol revised April 2018 showed: -Full assessment 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 before2022-03-22 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed for Foley catheters (a tube with retaining balloon passed through the urethra into the bladder to drain urine), to have physician's orders for Foley catheter care for two sampled residents (Resident #29 and Resident #30); and to properly place a catheter bag during a transfer for one sampled resident (Resident #30) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. A policy was requested and the facility did not have a policy. 1. Record review of Resident #29's admission Record showed he/she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had the following diagnoses: -Neuromuscular disorder of the bladder (when a person lacks bladder control due to brain, spinal cord or nerve problems. Several muscles and nerves must work together for your bladder to hold urine until you are ready to empty). -Foley catheter. -Hemiplegia (total or partial paralysis of one side of the body that results from…
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 before2022-03-22 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 notify the resident's physician and Registered Dietician (RD) of a significant weight loss and put interventions in place timely for one sampled resident (Resident #10) and to ensure the interventions for weight loss were being offered and implemented for two sampled residents (Resident #10 and Resident #27) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility's Nutrition and Unplanned Weight Loss Clinical Protocol revised 9/2017 showed: -The staff would report any significant weight loss to the physician. -The physician would review for medical causes of the weight loss before ordering interventions. -The physician would help identify medical conditions, medications, and oral/swallowing issues. -The physician would document relevant medical information regarding the nature, severity, causes, and consequences of impaired nutritional status. -The physician and staff would monitor the individuals'…
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 · D2022-03-22 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and monitoring for complications before and after hemodialysis (a procedure involving diverting blood into an external machine, where it is filtered before being returned to the body to remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys stop working properly) treatments, to have ongoing communication with the dialysis center, and to have individualized care plan interventions to address the resident's wishes/non-compliance related to licensed nurse assessment of his/her dialysis site for one sampled resident (Resident #49) selected for review of dialysis services, out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility Hemodialysis Access Care policy, revised September 2010 showed: -Care involves the primary goals of preventing infection and maintaining patency of the dialysis site (preventing clots). -To prevent infection…
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 · D2022-03-22 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's monthly Drug Regimen Review (DRR- thorough evaluation of the medication regimen of a resident, with the goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse consequences and potential risks associated with medication) recommendations were acted on for one sampled resident (Resident #20) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility Medication Orders policy, revised November 2014 showed: -When recording orders for medication specify: --The route (the way in which a drug enters the body). --The dosage (the quantity) of the medication. --The frequency of dose administration. --The strength (the proportion of active drug substance measured in units, volume or concentration) of the medication. Record review of the facility's Medication Utilization and Prescribing Clinical Protocol, dated April 2018 showed: -Based on input from the staff and resident, the physician would adjust…
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 · D2022-03-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving psychotropic medications (drugs which affect psychic function, behavior, or experience) with recommendations from the pharmacist were addressed and followed-up on by the resident's physician for one sampled resident (Resident #35) out of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 92 residents. Record review of the facility's Medication Utilization and Prescribing Clinical Protocol revised 4/18: -Based on input from the staff and resident, the physician would adjust medications based on efficacy, indications and the continued presence of clinically significant risks. -The consultant pharmacist should use the monthly and interim Drug Regimen Review (DRR) to help identify potentially problematic medications, including medication regimens that are not supported or based on clinical signs or symptoms. -The physician would document a clinically pertinent rationale for not modifying a medication in a situation where adverse drug…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AMA HOLDINGS — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 1.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MO OPERATION HOLDINGS DE SPE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 99% | since 01/25/2024 |
| AMA HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| DEF HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| MARX, ASHER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| WOLF, JACQUES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| CARR, SHAYRON | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 08/18/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% 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 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265700. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-18, 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.