Lincoln Community Care Center
205 Timberline Drive, Lincoln, MO 65338 · Non profit - Other · 66 certified beds · (660) 547-3322 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569, F0570)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $13,667 in federal fines (most recent 2023-10-03)
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 28.9% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.6% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 18.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.0% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.2% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.1% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.5% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.9% | 17.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.6% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.3% | 26.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.7% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.29 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 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.
47.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.0% 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 20 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 0.06 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 47.2%CMS range 35.2–59.8 | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 6.1–14.7 | 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 | 55.0% | 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 | 45.0% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 94.1% | 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 | 2.9% | 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 | 2.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.1–13.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.68 | 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 66 beds and averages 40.3 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 26 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 3.81 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.54 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.02 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-10-03 · 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 Surveyor: [NAME], [NAME] Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the potential spread of COVID-19 (an acute respiratory illness in humans caused by the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2) and other infections, when staff failed to follow acceptable infection control practices for COVID-19. The facility failed to separate four residents (Resident #1, #2, #3, and #4) who tested positive for COVID-19 from four residents (Resident #5, #6, #7 and #8) who had tested negative for COVID-19, which placed the residents at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to prolonged exposure. The facility census was 50. The Director of Nursing and Assistant Administrator were notified on 09/30/23 at 02:04 P.M. of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) which began on 09/23/23. The IJ was removed on 09/30/23, as confirmed by surveyor onsite verification. 1. Review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-15 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to review and revise the plan of care for three residents (Resident #6, #26, and #46) out of 16 sampled residents. The facility census was 44.1.Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans, dated 12/2016, showed:-A Comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident;-The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive;-The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will:-Incorporated identified problem areas;--Incorporated risk factors associated with identified problems;-Areas of concern that are identified during the resident assessment will be evaluated before interventions are added to the care plan;-Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-15 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program with antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor and track antibiotic use within the facility. The facility census was 44. 1.Review of the facility's policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship- Review and Surveillance of Antibiotic Use and Outcomes, revised 12/16, showed the following:-Antibiotic usage and outcome data will be collected and documented using a facility-approved antibiotic surveillance tracking form. The data will be used to guide decisions for improvement of individual resident antibiotic prescribing practices and facility-wide antibiotic stewardship;-As part of the facility Antibiotic Stewardship Program, all clinical infections treated with antibiotics will undergo review by the IP or designee;-All resident antibiotic regimens will be documented on the facility-approved antibiotic surveillance tracking form. The information gathered will include:--Resident name and medical record number;--Unit and room number;--Date symptoms appeared;--Name 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 · E2024-06-20 · tag F0569 — patternNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, facility staff failed to refund resident funds within 30 days of discharge for 17 residents (Resident # 255, #256, #257, #258, #259, #260, #260, #262, #263, #264, #265, #266, #267, #268, #269, #270, and #271) out of 41 sampled residents. The facility census was 55. 1. Review of the facility's refunds policy, undated, showed the policy did not contain direction for staff on resident refunds after discharge. 2. Review of the facility's aging report (report showing outstanding invoices and balances), dated [DATE], showed the following residents had money in the facility's operating account: -Resident #255 was discharged on [DATE]: with a balance of $3,503.61; -Resident #256 was discharged on [DATE]: with a balance of $3,658.59; -Resident #257 was discharged on [DATE]: with a balance of $5,492.79; -Resident #258 was discharged on [DATE]: with a balance of $4,727.14; -Resident #259 was discharged on [DATE]: with a balance of $6,550.37; -Resident #260 was discharged on [DATE]:…
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 before2024-06-20 · 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, facility staff failed to ensure care plans were reviewed and revised to include appropriate fall interventions for six (Resident #10,#12, #13, #19, #35, and #42) out of eight sampled resident's. Staff failed to ensure care plans reflected the use of side rails for one (Resident #42) out of eight sampled residents. The facility census was 55. 1. Review of the facility's Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2016, showed: -Identifying problem areas and their causes, and developing interventions that are targeted and meaningful to the resident, are the endpoint of an interdisciplinary process; -Care plan interventions are chosen only after careful data gathering, proper sequencing of events, careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes, and relevant clinical decision making; -When possible, interventions address the underlying sources(s) of the problem area(s), not just addressing only…
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 · E2024-06-20 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain professional standards of practice when staff did not complete neurological assessments after unwitnessed falls for two residents (Resident #35, and #42) of 14 sampled residents. Staff failed to get physician orders to self-administer eye drops for two residents (Resident #33 and #39) of 14 sampled residents. The facility census was 55. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Falls- Clinical Protocol, revised 09/12, showed the nurse shall assess and document/report the following: -Vital signs; -Neurological status; -Falls should be identified at witnessed or unwitnessed events. Review of the nurse's Fall Reports, showed the report directed staff neurological checks must be initiated if not witnessed. Review of the facility's Neurological Evaluation Flow Sheet, showed staff are directed to: -Complete checks-Every 15 minutes for one hour, every 30 minutes for two hours, every one hour for two hours and every shift for 72…
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 · E2024-06-20 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to provide an ongoing program of activities designed to meet three residents (Resident #4, #16 and #24) out of 14 sampled residents interest on the weekends. The facility census was 55. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Activity Programs, revised 6/18, showed it directed staff as follows: -The activities program is ongoing and includes facility-organized group activities, independent individual activities and assisted individual activities; -Activities are scheduled seven days a week and residents are given an opportunity to contribute to the planning, preparation, conducting, cleanup and critique of the programs; -Our activity programs consist of individual, small group and large group activities that are designed to meet the needs and interests of each resident. Activity programs include activities that promote self-esteem, comfort, pleasure, education, creativity, success, and independence. Review of the facility's activity calendar, dated…
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 · E2024-06-20 · 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 complete entrapment assessments for four residents (Residents #16, #24, #36 and #42) out of four sampled residents who use side rails, to ensure the environment remained safe and free of accident hazards. The facility census was 55. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Proper Use of Side Rails, revised 12/16, showed an assessment will be made to determine the resident's symptoms, risk of entrapment and reason for using side rails. When used for mobility or transfer, an assessment will include a review of the resident's: -Risk of entrapment from the use if side rails; -That the bed's dimensions are appropriate for the resident's size and weight. Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Safety, revised 12/07, showed to try and prevent death/injury from the beds and related equipment (including the frame, mattress, side rails, headboard, footboard, and bed accessories), the facility shall promote the following approaches:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-03-29 · 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 staff failed to store food in a manner to protect from potential contamination and out-dated use. Facility staff failed to prohibit the reuse of single-service containers for food storage. Facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene as often as necessary using approved techniques to prevent cross-contamination. Facility staff also failed to allow sanitized dishes to air dry prior to stacking in storage and use to prevent the growth of food-borne pathogens and cross-contamination. The facility census was 48. 1. Review of the facility's Food Receiving and Storage Policy, dated July 2014, showed: -Food in designated dry storage areas shall be kept off the floor (at least 18 inches); -All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated with a use by date; -Uncooked and raw animal products and fish will be stored separately in drip-proof containers and below fruits, vegetables and other ready-to-eat foods; -Beverages stored in unit refrigerators must be dated when opened and discarded after…
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 · E2023-03-29 · 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 observation, interview and record review facility staff failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for four residents (Resident #8,#10, #22, and #30). The facility census was 48. Review of the facility's Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Center Policy, dated March 2022, showed: -A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objective timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident; -The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment; -Describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being; includes the resident's stated goals upon admission and desired outcomes; builds on the resident's strengths; and reflects currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions; -Care plan…
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 · C2023-03-29 · tag F0570 — widespreadAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to purchase a surety bond in an amount sufficient to assure security of all resident funds the facility holds. The facility census was 48. 1. Review of the resident trust fund account for March 2022 through February 2023, showed an average monthly balance of $43,373.99 which requires a surety bond of $64,500.00. The current ledger amount showed $49,567.63. Review of the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) database, showed the facility with an approved non-cancelable Escrow Agreement Account in the amount of $60,000.00. During an interview on 03/29/23 at 10:53 A.M., the Business Office Manager (BOM) said he/she is in charge of ensuring the bond is sufficient, but he/she only received two days of training before going on maternity leave and he/she did not know the bond was insufficient.
“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
$13,667 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $13,667 — penalty dated 2023-10-03
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BENTCH, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/04/2012 |
| BRETHOWER, ROD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/10/2015 |
| COX, JEANNA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/04/2021 |
| MORRIS, HANSEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/04/2024 |
| RESER, CYNTHIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/03/2004 |
| SWEARNGIN, JANICE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/03/2004 |
| LINCOLN COMMUNITY NURSING HOME | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/09/1969 |
| HOWARD, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/11/2024 |
| ROEHRS, MATTHEW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265761. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-15, 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.