Good Shepherd Community Care And Rehabilitation
200 West 12th Street, Lockwood, MO 65682 · Non profit - Other · 69 certified beds · (417) 232-4571 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $5,293 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-25)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 40.6% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.1% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.9% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 18.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.4% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 37.9% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.6% | 25.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 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 | 15.3% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.0% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 53.6% | 63.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.82 | 2.11 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.22 | 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.
49.9% 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 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 | 49.9%CMS range 36.5–60.6 | 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 | 10.0%CMS range 7.0–16.0 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 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 69 beds and averages 59.5 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.37 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.34 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 3.91 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.55 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.60 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in a manner to protect the food from possible contamination when staff failed to store food in sealed containers; failed to discard expired and freezer burnt food; failed to ensure vents, windows, and fans were free of dirt and lint; failed to ensure the dishwasher washed and rinsed the dishes at the recommended temperature; and failed to ensure the dishwasher chemicals tested at recommended level. This had the potential to affect all residents who consumed food from the facility kitchen. The facility had a census of 62 residents. 1. Review of the 2013 Missouri Food Code showed food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food in a clean, dry location and where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination. Review of the facility policy titled, Food Receiving and Storage, revised July 2014, showed the following: -Food services, or other designated staff, will maintain clean food storage areas at all times; -Dry foods that are stored in bins…
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 · E2024-04-01 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the revision of comprehensive care plans to include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the medical and nursing needs for two residents (Resident #11, and Resident #313) who sustained falls with injuries, for one resident (Resident #10) who declined requiring the use of a wheelchair, and for one resident (Resident #14) who required significant additional nutritional assistance out of 19 sampled residents. The facility census was 62. Review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2016, showed the following: -The comprehensive person-centered care plan will incorporate identified problem areas; incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems; and reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions; -Assessment of residents is ongoing and care plans are revised as resident information or condition changes; -The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) must…
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 · E2024-04-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 ensure an environment as free of accident hazards as possible when staff failed to use equipment improperly resulting a fall with injury, when staff did not update the care plan with new interventions after the fall, and when staff did not document a timely and complete assessment of the resident after the fall for one resident (Resident #11). The facility failed to ensure residents were transferred safely when staff failed to transfer one resident properly with a Hoyer lift (mechanical devised used for lifting residents) resulting in bruising to the resident's face and failed to document a full and timely assessment of the bruise received for one resident (Resident #21). The facility failed to ensure an effective system was in place to monitor all residents ability to smoke and monitor smoking supplies when staff were unclear if one resident (Resident #32) could smoke independently safely and could keep his/her smoking supplies on…
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 · E2024-04-01 · tag F0728 — failed to protect against nurse-aide misconduct — patternEnsure that nurse aides who have worked more than 4 months, are trained and competent; and nurse aides who have worked less than 4 months are enrolled in appropriate training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a system in placed to ensure nurse aides (NA) completed their training, competencies, and testing in a timely manner when seven NAs (NA D, NA E, NA F, NA G, NA H, NA I, and NA J) failed to complete a state approved certified nursing assistant (CNA) training program, competency evaluation, and certification test timely and continued to work providing direct care to residents. The facility's census was 62. Review of the facility policy titled, Nurse Aide Qualifications & Training Requirements, revised October 2017, the facility will not employ any individual as a nurse aide for more than four months full-time, temporary, per diem or otherwise unless: -That individual is competent to provide nursing care and nursing related services, and -That the individual has completed a training program and competency evaluation program, or a competency evaluation program approved by the state, or; -That individual has been deemed competent as provided in 483.150 (a) and (b) of the requirements of participation. 1. Review of 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 · E2024-04-01 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of records to ensure all controlled drugs were routinely and consistently reconciled and that discontinued or expired controlled medications and disposed of in a timely manner. The facility's census was 62. Review of the facility's Storage of Medications Policy, dated April 2007, showed the following: -The facility shall store all drugs and biological's in a safe, secure and orderly manner; -Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes.) containing drugs and biological's shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others; -Drugs shall be stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, carts, or automatic dispensing systems; -Each resident's medications shall be assigned to an individual cubicle, drawer, or other holding area to prevent the possibility of missing medications of several residents; -Medications requiring…
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 before2024-04-01 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for all residents that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment when staff did not care plan one resident's (Resident #11) use of an anticoagulant medication and did not care plan one resident's (Resident #46) oxygen usage. A sample of 19 residents was reviewed in a facility with a census of 62. Review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2016, showed the comprehensive person-centered care plan will incorporate identified problem areas; incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems; and reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions. 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Anticoagulant-Clinical Protocol, revised September 2012, showed the following: -The staff will identify…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-01 · 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 a system in place that clearly and consistently represented each resident's choice of code status (if they wished to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR - lifesaving technique that's useful in many emergencies in which someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped) if their heart and/or breathing stopped) when staff failed to have the physician sign one resident's (Resident #46) Outside the Hospital Do Not Resuscitate Form (DNR - do not attempt CPR) and when staff failed to ensure one resident's (Resident #20) code status was consistent throughout the medical record. The facility census was 62. Review of the facility's policy titled, Advanced Directive, revised [DATE], showed the following: -The plan of care for each resident will be consistent with his or her documented treatment preferences and/or advanced directive; -The interdisciplinary team will review annually with the resident his or her advanced directives to ensure that such…
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 before2024-04-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 all controlled medications were stored per standards of practice when a controlled substance was not stored in a locked box. The facility's census was 62. Review of the facility's Storage of Medications Policy, dated April 2007, showed the following: -The facility shall store all drugs and biological's in a safe, secure, and orderly manner; -Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing drugs and biological's shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others; -Drugs shall be stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, carts, or automatic dispensing systems; -Medications requiring refrigeration must be stored in a refrigerator located in the drug room at the nurses' station or other secured location. Medications must be stored separately and labeled accordingly. Review of 19 Code of State Regulation (CSR) 30-1.034…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-01 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed ensure medical records were maintained and accurate in accordance of standards of practice when staff failed to timely document an assessment and notification of the physician for one resident (Resident #313), who fell and sustained a foot fracture. A sample of 19 residents was reviewed in a facility with a census of 62. Review of the facility policy titled, Changes in a Resident's Condition or Status, revised December 2016, showed the nurse will record in the resident's medical record information relative to changes in the resident's medical/mental condition change or status. Review of the facility policy titled, Charting and Documentation, revised July 2017, showed the following: -All services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional, or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition 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 · Fcited before2022-03-25 · 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 interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to keep food safe from potential contamination when surfaces had a build up grease, lint, and hair on food contact areas or areas that directly affected food contact areas. The facility census was 62. Record review of the facility's policy titled Sanitation, revised October 2008, showed the following information: -The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner; -All kitchen areas and dining areas shall be kept clean, free from litter and rubbish; -All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean and maintained in good repair; -All equipment, food contact surfaces and utensils shall be washed to remove or completely loosen soils by using the manual or mechanical means necessary and sanitized using hot water and/or chemical sanitizing solutions; -Between uses, cloths and towels used to wipe kitchen surfaces will be soaked in containers filled with approved sanitizing solution; -The food service manager will be responsible for scheduling staff for regular cleaning 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.
Show the remaining 7 citations
- Potential for harm · E2022-03-25 · tag F0623 — patternProvide 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of a transfer or discharge to the hospital for two residents (Resident #43, and #64) and failed to ensure the transfer/discharge notice contained all required information for one resident (Resident #22). The facility census was 62. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Transfer or Discharge Notice, dated December 2016, showed the following information: -The resident and/or resident representative will be notified in writing of the following information: -The reason for the transfer or discharge; -The effective date of the transfer or discharge; -The location to which the resident is being transferred or discharged ; -The name, address, and telephone number of the State Long-Term Care Appeal Agency and the State Ombudsman; -The reasons for the transfer or discharge will be documented in the resident's medical record. 1. Record review of Resident #43's face sheet (a brief information sheet about the resident) showed the following information:…
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 · E2022-03-25 · tag F0625 — patternNotify 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written information to the resident and/or resident's representative of the facility's bed hold policy for three residents (Resident #22, #43, and #64). The facility census was 62. Record review of the facility's policy titled Transfer or Discharge Notice, dated December 2016, showed the resident and/or resident representative will be notified in writing of the facility bed hold policy. Record review of the facility's policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns dated March 2017, showed the following information: -Prior to a transfer, written information will be given to the residents and the resident representatives that explains in detail: -The rights and limitations of the resident regarding bed-holds; -The reserve bed payment policy as indicated by the state plan (Medicaid residents); -The facility per diem rate required to hold a bed (non-Medicaid residents), or to hold a bed beyond the state bed-hold period (Medicaid residents); and -The details of the transfer (per the Notice of Transfer). 1. Record review 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 · E2022-03-25 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed maintain a sanitary environment when staff failed to keep the kitchen area clean and free of debris. The facility census was 62. Record review of the facility's policy titled Sanitation, revised October 2008, showed the following information: -The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner; -All kitchen areas and dining areas shall be kept clean, free from litter and rubbish; -All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean and maintained in good repair; -Between uses, cloths and towels used to wipe kitchen surfaces will be soaked in containers filled with approved sanitizing solution; -Kitchen and dining room surfaces not in contact with food shall be cleaned on a regular schedule and frequently enough to prevent accumulation of grime; -The food service manager will be responsible for scheduling staff for regular cleaning of kitchen and dining areas; -Food service staff will be trained to maintain cleanliness throughout their work areas during all tasks; and, -Food…
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 · E2019-07-31 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure five residents' (Resident #17, #19, #43, #49, and #51) tuberculosis (TB) ( an infectious disease that mainly affects lungs) test results were documented in millimeters (mm) and failed to ensure one resident's (Resident #43) TB tests was read within the required 48-72 hour timeframe. The facility also failed to ensure staff followed appropriate infection control standards when staff did not remove their gloves and wash their hands after providing incontinent care for one resident (Resident #43). A sample of 15 residents was selected for review in a facility with census of 59. 19 CSR 20-20.100 - General requirements for Tuberculosis Testing for Residents in Long-Term Care Facilities states the following: -Long-term care facilities shall screen their residents for tuberculosis. Each facility shall be responsible for ensuring that all test results are completed and that documentation is maintained. -Within one month prior to or one week 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 · Dcited before2019-07-31 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs when the facility failed to care plan for exit seeking behavior of one resident (Resident #21). The facility census was 59. Review of a facility policy entitled Care Area Assessments (Revised December 2016), showed the comprehensive person-centered care plan will: -Describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being; -Incorporate identified problem areas; -Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems; -Reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions; -Include care needs based on physician orders. 1. Record review of Resident #21's face sheet (a document that gives a resident's information at a quick glance) showed the following: -An admission date of 10/18/17; -Diagnoses…
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 · D2019-07-31 · 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, record review, and interview, the facility staff failed to provide the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for one resident (Resident #108) who had an indwelling urinary catheter (tubing inserted into the bladder to drain urine), and one resident (Resident #29) who was incontinent of both bowel and bladder. A sample of 15 residents was reviewed; the facility census was 59. Record review of a facility policy entitled, Standard Precautions (Revised December 2007), showed the following information: -Wear gloves when you anticipate direct contact with blood, body fluids, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, and other potentially infected material; -Remove gloves promptly after use, before touching non-contaminated items and environmental surfaces, and before going to another resident and wash hands immediately to avoid transfer of microorganisms to other residents or environments. Record review of a facility policy entitled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene (Revised August 2015), showed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-07-31 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain the proper temperature of the medication refrigerator used to store multi-dose vials of insulin and other medications that required refrigeration. The facility failed to take action when the temperature in the medication refrigerator fell outside the appropriate range required for the medication. The facility census was 59. According to the American Diabetes Association, insulin does not work well when it is kept for too long or is exposed to extreme temperatures (like heating and freezing). Insulin clumps at temperatures below 36 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Cold insulin can make the injection uncomfortable. -The refrigerator must maintain a temperature between 36 and 46 degrees F. -If a temperature reading is outside the recommended range, it should be reported immediately and corrective action should be taken to correct the problem. -The facility should ensure that drugs and biologicals are stored at their appropriate temperatures. Record review of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…
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
$5,293 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $5,293 — penalty dated 2023-09-25
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GOOD SHEPHERD NURSING HOME | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/12/2015 |
| FINLEY, JOY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| HAUBEIN, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| HIGGINS, JIM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2022 |
| MAYDEN, JANE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 04/26/2021 |
| ROBINSON, AMANDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2019 |
| RICHARDSON, CAREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/07/2023 |
| MIDWEST PHYSICAL THERAPY PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2019 |
| OLIVER, MALCOLM | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
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 265705. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-01, 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.