Aspire Senior Living Moberly
700 East Urbandale Drive, Moberly, MO 65270 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 101 certified beds · (660) 263-9060 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (36) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $80,640 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-09)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 1 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 | 22.2% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.3% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.5% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.8% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 12.4% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 4.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.3% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 35.0% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 73.1% | 90.9% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.6% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.9% | 17.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.1% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 45.2% | 63.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.0% | 26.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 27.6% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.33 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.70 | 2.33 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
50.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 52 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 82.9% 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 35 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 37% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 50.4%CMS range 38.5–63.2 | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 6.8–15.1 | 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 | 82.9% | 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 | 74.3% | 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 | 74.3% | 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 | 93.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.2%CMS range 3.6–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.24 | 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 101 beds and averages 71.2 residents a day — about 70% occupied, or roughly 30 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.23 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.65 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.67 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.27 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
36 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2025-09-09 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — widespreadHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 a safe environment for all residents. On 8/22/25, the facility received information from a structural engineer the middle common area framing, in its current condition, was not structurally sound. The structural engineer advised that the area below this needed to be unoccupied until all the framing deficiencies were addressed. The facility continued to utilize the middle common area, which included the resident sitting area toward the front entrance, the central nurses station, and the access to six hallways and the dining room and did not prohibit access until repairs were made. The facility census was 70. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 09/04/25 at 5:08 P.M. which began on 08/22/25. The IJ was removed on 09/04/25 as confirmed by the surveyor's onsite verification. Review of the facility's policy, Maintenance, dated 01/30/24, showed the following: -Purpose was to protect the assets of the building;…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-09-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of needs for one resident (Resident #4), in a review of 24 sampled residents, when staff did not ensure the resident had a comfortable wheelchair that fit him/her properly and did not cause him/her discomfort and pain. The resident presented with an increase in depression symptoms and reported that due to not having a comfortable wheelchair, he/she stayed in bed and felt abandoned, thrown away and like nobody cared. The facility also failed to ensure call lights were within reach for three residents (Residents #3, #22 and #29), in a review of 24 sampled residents. The facility census was 64. Review of the facility policy, Accommodation of Needs, revised 03/2021, showed the following: -Our facility's environment and staff behaviors are directed toward assisting the resident in maintaining and/or achieving safe independent functioning, dignity and well-being; -1. The resident's individual needs 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 · Ecited before2026-05-21 · 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, the facility failed to administer medications per physician's order, manufacturer guidelines, and per professional standard of practice for four additional residents (Residents #80 #32, #59, and #54), and failed to provide proper care for a urinary catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) for one resident (Resident #7). The facility census was 71. Review of the facility policy, Medication Administration, dated 10/01/25, showed the following:-Medications are administered by licensed nurses or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection;-Administer medication as ordered in accordance with manufacturer specifications (provide appropriate amount of food and fluid). 1. Review of Resident #80's physician's orders, dated May 2026, showed the following:-His/Her diagnoses included hypokalemia (low…
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 before2026-05-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure seven residents (Residents #7, #11, #24, #13, #60, #5 and #15), who required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), in a review of 23 sampled residents, received necessary care and services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene. The facility census was 71. Review of the facility policy, Grooming a Resident's Facial Hair, dated 10/01/25, showed it was the facility's practice to assist residents with grooming facial hair to help maintain proper hygiene as per current standards of practice. (The policy did not provide direction on how often staff were to shave a resident's facial hair.) Review of the facility policy, Resident Showers, dated 10/01/25, showed the following:-It was the facility's practice to assist residents with bathing to maintain proper hygiene, stimulate circulation and help prevent skin issues as per current standards of practice;-Staff will provide residents with showers as per request or as per…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-05-21 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet residents' needs for seven residents (Resident #6, #71, #7, #11, #24, #15 and #5), in a review of 23 sampled residents, and for one additional resident (Resident #43). Staff failed to provide restorative therapy when the restorative aide (RA) was pulled to work as a certified nurse assistant (CNA) and was unable to complete duties for the restorative therapy nursing program. The facility failed to ensure sufficient staff were available to provide routine showers to ensure good personal hygiene and failed to ensure there was sufficient staff to provide assistance with residents' activities of daily living and care needs. The facility census was 71. Review of the Facility Assessment, last revised on 09/23/25, showed the following:-Staffing decisions are determined at the facility level (corporate input may be included) to ensure there are enough staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets necessary to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-09 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
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 a Registered Nurse (RN) eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, for 15 of 32 days reviewed. The facility census was 70. Review of the facility policy, Registered Nurse, dated 01/30/24, showed the following: -Purpose: ensure that an RN is available for supervision in the facility;-Procedure: except when waived, the facility must use the services of an RN for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. 1. Review of the facility assessment, revised 05/14/25, showed a staffing plan of eight RN hours per a resident day on the day shift. 2. Review of the facility posted staffing sheets, from 08/05/25 through 09/05/25, documenting staff who worked each day, showed the following: -No RN coverage on 08/05/25;-No RN coverage on 08/06/25;-No RN coverage on 08/09/25;-No RN coverage on 08/10/25;-No RN coverage on 08/16/25;-No RN coverage on 08/17/25;-No RN coverage on 08/19/25;-No RN coverage on 08/23/25;-No RN coverage on 08/24/25;-No RN coverage on 08/30/25;-No RN coverage on 08/31/25;-No RN coverage…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-27 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered according to professional standards of practice for one resident (Resident #1), in a review of five sampled residents. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A administered an antipsychotic medication prepared by another nurse, LPN D, was unaware of the contents of the medication cup when he/she administered the medication to the resident and failed to document administration of the medication. LPN D gave a certified nurse aide medication LPN D prepared and when the certified nurse aide was unsuccessful in administration, LPN A administered the medication. The facility census was 64. Review of the facility undated Medication Administration policy showed the following: -Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice; -Review Medication Administration Record (MAR) to identify medication to be administered; -Compare medication source with MAR to verify resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-09-18 · 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 label, date and cover food items, failed to properly wear hair restraints, failed to utilize proper handwashing and glove use while handling ready to eat food items, failed to maintain the walk-in cooler fan shrouds to be free of a buildup of debris, and failed to ensure the ice machine had an appropriate air gap. The facility census was 64. Review of the facility policy, Labeling and Dating Foods (Date Marking), dated 2020, showed the following: -All foods stored will be properly labeled according to the following guidelines; -Date marking for refrigerated storage food items: Once opened, all ready to eat, potentially hazardous food will be re-dated with a use by date according to current safe food storage guidelines or by the manufacturer's expiration date; -Prepared food or opened food items should be discarded when: The food item does not have a specific manufacturer expiration date and has been refrigerated for 7 days. The food item is leftover for more than 72 hours. The food item is older than the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-09-18 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify that one employee had a previous criminal offense as identified on a Criminal Background Check (CBC) through the Family Care Safety Registry (FCSR), that would have prohibited his/her employment, and allowed Housekeeper H continued resident contact through his/her employment at the facility. The facility census was 64. Review of the undated facility document, titled Department of Health and Senior Services, Can't Hire and Can Hire, showed the Can't Hire column included burglary, first degree, class B felony (§569.160). Review of the facility policy and procedure, Criminal Background Checks, revised 08/21/24, showed the following: -Purpose: Ensure compliance with state and federally required criminal background checks needed to provide a safe environment for residents, staff, and visitors; -All prospective employees must undergo criminal background checks before being hired; -All background checks will be conducted annually; -The background checks cover various offenses, including felonies, misdemeanors and certain…
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 before2024-09-18 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to design a meaningful activity program to meet the needs and interests of six residents (Residents #3, #4, #21, #22, #30 and #50), in a review of 24 sampled residents. The facility failed to provide activities to the residents at a frequency consistent with their plan of care and activity assessment, and failed to provide a structured activities program to three residents (Residents #21, #22 and #50) on the memory care unit focused on the individualized needs of the residents to keep them engaged in meaningful activities. The facility census was 64. Review of the facility's policy, Activity Program, dated 01/30/24, showed the following: -Activities refer to any endeavor, other than routine ADLs, in which a resident participates that is intended to enhance his/her sense of well-being and to promote or enhance physical, cognitive, and emotional health. These include, but are not limited to, activities that promote self-esteem, pleasure,…
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 before2024-09-18 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate staffing to monitor residents, provide oversight, and to provide activities to the ten residents who resided on the memory care unit. The facility census was 64. Review of the Facility Assessment, updated 02/12/24, showed the following: -The facility was licensed for 120 total beds; 14 of these beds were located on the locked unit (dementia care); -The facility had an average daily census of 71 ranging from 65-72 residents at a time; -There was an average of 12 residents located on the locked dementia care unit; -Approach to Staffing: -Five certified nurse assistants (CNAs) on day shift 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M.; -Five CNAs on evening shift 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M.; -Three CNAs on night shift 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. -Staffing plan for the memory care unit was 16 hours per resident day for days and for nights; -Assignments were determined on a continuing and daily level based upon the acuity/needs of the current residents in the facility. Review of the Resident Bed List Report, dated 09/15/24, showed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-18 · tag F0576 — isolatedEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to privacy with communication when the facility opened two additional residents' (Resident #51 and #52) personal mail without permission. The facility census was 64. Review of the facility's policy, Mail and Electronic Communication, revised May 2017, showed the following: -Residents are allowed to communicate privately with individuals of their choice and may send and receive personal mail, email and other electronic forms of communication confidentially; -Mail will be delivered to the resident unopened; -Staff members of this facility will not open mail for the resident unless the resident requests them to do so (such request will be documented in the resident's plan of care). 1. During group interview on 09/16/24, at 1:05 P.M., two residents in attendance said they had received mail opened in the past few months and did not want to have their mail opened. Resident #51 said his/her mail was a financial statement and Resident #52 said his/her mail was personal mail. Neither resident said they had any…
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 24 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-18 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility facility failed to provide documentation of a medical diagnosis that warranted the use of a restraint prior to initiation, assessment and monitoring for the use of physical restraints, including a wheelchair locked when placed up to the dining room table, a pommel cushion (a cushion with an upward-projecting protuberance at its front part that prevents a wheelchair dependent resident from sliding down and possibly falling out of a wheelchair), to prevent rising from a wheelchair, and a recliner positioned with he legs elevated (Resident #50 and #22), in a review of 24 sampled residents, who were in chairs to prevent them from rising. The residents could not easily and intentionally rise from their wheelchairs or a recliner. The facility did not document other interventions attempted or the consent of the resident or his/her representative. The facility census was 64. Review of the facility policy Use of Restraints, dated 01/30/24, showed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan specific to the resident, for two residents (Resident #42 and #36), in a review of 24 sampled residents. The facility census was 64. Review of the facility policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised March 2022, showed the following: -The interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident; -The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment; -The comprehensive, person-centered care plan: a. Includes measurable objectives and timeframes; b. Describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being; c. Includes the resident's stated goals upon admission and desired outcomes; d.…
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 before2024-09-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided two residents (Resident #42 and #36), who required assistance to complete their own activities of daily living (ADL), in a review of 24 sampled residents, the necessary care and services to maintain good oral hygiene. The facility census was 64. Review of the facility policy, Dental/Oral Care of the Resident, dated 01/30/24, showed the following: -Purpose: to clean and freshen the resident's mouth, prevent infections of the mouth, maintain the teeth and gums in a healthy condition, stimulate the gums and remove food particles from between the teeth; -Assist the resident with brushing their teeth based on individual needs; -Teeth should be brushed every morning and evening; -Flossing of the teeth should be done at least once a day to promote healthy gums; -Inspect the gums for any paleness, discoloration, bleeding sores or irritation; -Inspect the teeth for decay or looseness; -Report and document any issues with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-18 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an approved indication for use of psychotropic medications for one resident (Resident #21), in a review of five residents sampled for unnecessary medications. Resident #21 had an order for risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) which is contraindicated for use in residents with dementia related psychosis. The resident's dosage of risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) was increased after the resident presented with one day of behaviors on 01/19/24 after the medication was decreased on 01/16/24. The resident's medical record did not contain documentation the facility assessed the root cause of the resident's behaviors or attempted non-pharmacological interventions to address the behaviors prior to increasing and adding medications to the resident's medication regimen. The facility census was 64. Review of Drugs.com on 9/18/24, showed the following: -Risperidone is an antipsychotic medicine that works by changing the effects of chemicals in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-03-16 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to implement sanitary practices and conditions within the dietary department to prevent the potential for contamination of food during storage, preparation, and distribution. The facility census was 69. 1. Observation on 03/13/23 between 9:32 A.M. and 12:27 P.M., of the preparation and service of the noon meal, showed the following: -At 9:32 A.M., Dietary [NAME] P prepared the noon meal in the kitchen. He/She did not have the front of his/her hair covered with a hair net. Dietary Aide A washed dishes and did not have the front of his/her hair covered with a hairnet; -At 10:25 A.M., Dietary Aide B rolled silverware into napkins for the residents' meal and did not wear a beard restraint to cover his/her beard; -At 11:05 A.M., Dietary Aide A stacked three wet skillets and put them away on a shelf; -At 11:34 A.M., Dietary [NAME] P wore gloves during the meal service. He/She picked up pieces of chicken with his/her gloved hands, rather than using a serving utensil, then touched plates, serving utensils, and meal cards. He/She did…
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 · E2023-03-16 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff spoke to one resident (Resident #4), in a review of 18 sampled residents, and one additional resident (Resident #45), in a dignified manner. The facility census was 69. Review of the facility policy Dignity, revised February 2021, showed the following: -Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his/her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem; -Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times; -Staff speak respectfully to residents at all times, including addressing the resident by his/her name of choice and not labeling or referring to the resident by his/her room number, diagnosis or care needs; -Demeaning practices and standards of care that compromise dignity are prohibited. 1. Review of Resident #45's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument, completed by facility staff, dated 12/22/22,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-16 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Registry for a Federal Indicator (which would disquality an individual from working in the facility) for eight employees in a review of ten newly hired employees. The facility also failed to develop a policy and procedure to address reviewing the CNA Registry for a Federal indicator for all potential new hires. The facility census was 69. Review of the undated facility policy titled CNA Registry Check for Skilled Nursing Facilities, showed the following: Purpose: -The purpose of this policy is to ensure resident safety by requiring all skilled nursing facilities to conduct a CNA Registry Check before hiring CNAs. This policy aims to ensure that all CNAs employed by the facility are properly trained, qualified, and have no history of abuse or neglect in the provision of care for residents; Policy Statement: -All skilled nursing facilities shall conduct a CNA Registry Check on all applicants for CNA positions. The registry check must be conducted prior to extending an offer of employment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided the necessary care and services to maintain good personal hygiene and prevent body odor for seven residents (Residents #4, #35, #37, #41, #50, #116, and #317), who required assistance to perform their activities of daily living (ADLs), in a review of 18 sampled residents. The facility census was 69. Review of the facility's undated Shower/Tub Bath policy shower no evidence of how frequently residents should receive a shower/bath. Review of the facility's undated policy, Dental/Oral Care of the Resident, showed the following: -Assist the resident with brushing his/her teeth based on individual needs; -Teeth should be brushed every morning and evening. 1. Review of Resident #41's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument, dated 1/28/23, showed the following: -Severely impaired cognition; -No behaviors or rejections of care; -Total dependence of one staff member for personal hygiene…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-16 · 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 safety during transfers and/or repositioning for four residents (Residents #6, #20, #22 and #27), in a review of 18 sampled residents. Staff failed to properly transfer three residents (Residents #20, #22, and #27) with a gait belt (a device put around a resident's waist prior to a transfer or position change to aid in the safe movement from one surface to another), and failed to safely reposition one resident (Resident #6) while in bed. The facility census was 69. Review of the undated facility policy, Gait Belt Use, Mechanical Lift, and Manual Transfer, showed the following: -Purpose: The purpose of this policy and procedure is to ensure the safe and proper use of gait belts, mechanical lifts, and manual transfer in our skilled nursing facility; these devices are used to assist residents with mobility assistance within the skilled nursing facility; -Policy: Our skilled nursing facility is committed to ensuring the safety 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 · Ecited before2023-03-16 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 staff prepared and served food at a safe and appetizing temperature. The facility census was 69. During interview on 3/13/23 at 9:54 A.M., Resident #33 said the food served at the facility was mediocre in taste and temperature. During an interview on 3/13/23 at 10:18 A.M., Resident #10 said the following: -Sometimes the food was not hot; -The food was bland; -Sometimes the meat was not tender. Record review of the menu for the noon meal on 03/13/23 showed the menu items included fried chicken and creamed corn. During interview on 3/13/23 at 12:14 P.M., Resident #20 said the following: -The fried chicken for lunch was cold, hard, and he/she couldn't chew it. (Observation showed the resident consumed less than 10% of the fried chicken on his/her plate); -A lot of times the foods that were supposed to be hot were not hot. Observation on 03/13/23 at 12:27 P.M., of the test tray received after the last resident was served, showed the fried chicken was 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the ground chicken was 101…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control practices when staff rinsed out a graduated cylinder that contained urine in the sink in one resident's (Resident #37) shared room, in a review of 18 sampled residents, and rinsed a fecal soiled incontinence pad in the sink in one additional resident's (Resident #29's) shared room. The facility also failed to ensure all procedures were implemented to address prevention, development, and transmission of Tuberculosis (TB) as directed by facility policy. The facility failed to ensure Tuberculin Skin Tests (TST; an injection into the top layer of skin in the forearm that contains purified protein derivative, PPD) were completed and documented as directed by facility policy for eight of ten sampled employees reviewed. The facility census was 69. 1. Review of the undated facility policy, Disinfection of Contaminated Medical Equipment in a Skilled Nursing Facility, showed the following: -The policy applied to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-16 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 notify the physician timely after a change in condition for one additional resident (Resident #117) and one discharged resident (Resident #64). The facility census was 69. Review of the facility's Notification of Changes policy, undated, showed the following: -The facility must immediately inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician, and notify, consistent with his/her authority, the resident representative(s) when there is: a. A significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); b. A need to alter treatment significantly (that is, a need to discontinue an existing from a treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment). 1. Review of Resident #64's face sheet, showed the following: -admitted on [DATE]; -Diagnoses: acute neurologic symptoms (caused by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-16 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide proper care to a suprapubic urinary catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder through a small cut in the low abdomen) for one resident (Resident #37), in a review of 18 sampled residents. Four residents had a urinary catheter. The facility census was 69. Review of the facility's undated policy, Catheter Care, showed catheter bags must be kept below the level of the bladder to prevent backflow of urine. Review of Resident #37's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 1/4/23, showed the following: -The resident had moderate cognitive impairment; -He/She required extensive assistance from two staff for toilet use and personal hygiene; -He/She was dependent on two staff for transfers; -He/She was dependent on one staff for mobility in a wheelchair; -He/She had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of the resident's physician orders, dated March 2023, showed catheter care every shift and as needed. Review of the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-08-15 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices in the kitchen. The facility census was 47. 1. Review of the Dietary Personnel Guidelines policy dated May 2015 showed hairnets should be worn at all times and should cover the entire head of hair. Hands should be washed any time deemed necessary. 2. Review of the dietitian consultation report dated 08/07/19 showed the dietitian did a complete walk through of the kitchen area with the dietary manager. They discussed employee behaviors including food handling and the standards for food protection. 3. Observation on 08/12/19 between 9:36 A.M. and 12:31 A.M. showed the following: -Kitchen staff in the kitchen preparing the noon meal; -A male employee walked through the kitchen with no hair net or beard net (employee had facial hair); -Dietary Aide F had facial hair and wore no beard net; -The dietary manager did not have the front of her hair covered with her hairnet; -Dietary Aide F dished up pears for the noon meal and did not wear a beard net; -Dietary Aide F pureed pears…
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 before2019-08-15 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to design and provide an activity program to meet the needs, interests, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for six residents (Residents #9, #12, #17, #20, #39, and #45) in a review of 12 sampled residents. The facility census was 47. 1. Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual, dated October 2013, showed the following: -Most residents capable of communicating can answer questions about what they like; -Obtaining information about preferences directly from the resident, sometimes called hearing the resident's voice, is the most reliable and accurate way of identifying preferences; -If a resident cannot communicate, then family or significant other who knows the resident well may be able to provide useful information about preferences; -Quality of life can be greatly enhanced when care respects the resident's choice regarding anything that is important to the resident; -Interviews…
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 · E2019-08-15 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 staff served bread as directed by the spreadsheet to residents on regular, mechanical soft and pureed diets. The facility census was 47. Review of the facility's spreadsheet menu for 8/12/19 showed staff were to serve meatballs with gravy, mashed potatoes, seasoned carrots, dinner roll, and chilled pears to residents at the noon meal. The meal was to be served to all residents on regular, mechanical soft and pureed diets. The modified diets were to be of appropriate consistency for the resident's diet. Observation on 08/12/19 between 11:53 A.M. and 12:31 P.M. of the noon meal, showed staff did not serve a dinner roll or bread to the residents as directed by the spreadsheet menu. During an interview on 8/12/19 at 2:27 P.M., Resident #20 said he/she did not get a dinner roll for the lunch meal. He/She would have eaten the roll if he/she had been served a roll. Residents do not usually get bread with their meals. During interview on 08/12/19 at 2:45 P.M., the administrator said she expected staff to follow…
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 before2019-08-15 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature. The facility census was 47. 1. Review of the facility's policy, Food Temperatures, dated May 2015, showed hot food should be at least 120 degrees Fahrenheit when served to the resident. 2. Record review of the facility menu for 08/12/19 showed the lunch meal included meatballs with gravy, mashed potatoes, and seasoned carrots. During observation and interview on 8/12/19 at 12:30 P.M. Resident #42 sat on the bed in his/her room. The resident was eating his/her lunch tray of meatballs, mashed potatoes and gravy, carrots, and pears. The resident said the food was barely warm. The food didn't taste too bad but it would be much better if it was warm. The resident would prefer the food to be warmer. During interview on 8/12/19 at 2:27 P.M., Resident #20 said his/her food was usually cold when he/she received it. Observation on 08/12/19 at 12:31 P.M. of the noon meal test tray, received after the last resident was served showed the following food temperatures:…
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 · D2019-08-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report allegations of resident-to-resident abuse to the state agency within two hours. The facility census was 47. 1. Review of the facility's Abuse Policy, undated, showed the following: -The facility will adhere to reporting time frames as outlined for the reporting to the State Survey agency for reporting to law enforcement. When there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, to include but not limited to: abuse or the crime results in serious bodily injury, the crime must be reported within two hours. If the crime is not abuse or result in serious bodily injury, the report must be made within 24 hours; -The nursing home administrator or designee will report abuse to the state agency per State and Federal requirements. 2. Review of Resident #34's nursing progress notes, dated 8/13/19 at 7:06 P.M., showed the resident was in another resident's room this evening. A staff member observed the resident hit and shake the other resident by the arm. Registered Nurse (RN) O notified the assistant director of nursing…
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 · D2019-08-15 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to increase range of motion and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion for two residents (Residents #12, and #45), in a review of 12 sampled residents. The facility census was 47. 1. Review of the facility's policy on Range of Motion, dated May 2006, showed the following: -Range of motion (ROM) may be defined as the extent of movement within a given joint which is normally achieved through the action of a muscle or group of muscles; -Objectives of ROM are to prevent contractures (fibrotic changes which begin to occur in the muscles and other joint tissues within three to four days if immobility); -To maintain normal range of motion (different normal ranges of motion may be fund in different individuals); -To increase joint motion to the maximum possible range; -To maintain and build muscle strength; -To stimulate circulation; -To prevent…
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 before2019-08-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to evaluate and implement interventions to prevent further choking episodes after one additional resident (Resident #39), who had a history of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), choked and required the Heimlich maneuver (a first-aid procedure for dislodging an obstruction from a person's windpipe in which a sudden strong pressure is applied on the abdomen) to dislodge the food. The facility also failed to ensure an electric range in the activity area, accessible to residents, was inoperable when not in use. The facility census was 47. 1. Review Resident #39's care plan, dated 10/18/18, showed the following: -History of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and at risk for aspiration (breathe foreign objects into the airway); -Monitor for signs and symptoms of aspiration, coughing, wheezing, fever, etc. and notify the resident's physician. Review of the resident's physician orders, dated 7/1/19 - 7/31/19, showed an order for a regular diet with regular liquids. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set…
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 · D2019-08-15 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate services to attain the highest practical well-being for one resident (Resident #34), with a diagnosis of dementia, in a review of 12 sampled residents. Facility staff identified the resident had behaviors affecting the resident and other residents, however, did not evaluate and implement further approaches to address the resident's care needs related to his/her diagnosis of dementia. The facility census was 47. 1. Review of the facility's policy on the philosophy and mission statement of the Special Care Unit (SCU), dated April 2006, showed the following: -The overall objective of the SCU was to provide a therapeutic, homelike, environment that maximizes the resident's independent functioning for as long as possible; -The purpose of the SCU was to provide each resident with individualized care that enhances their quality of life by meeting physical and psychosocial needs; -The mission of the SCU was to provide activity focused, holistic, healthcare in a comfortable, safe, structured,…
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 · D2019-08-15 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer insulin according to the manufacturer's recommendations for two different types of insulin pens, for one resident (Resident #45), in a review of 12 sampled residents and one additional resident (Resident #6). Facility staff also failed to ensure an insulin vial had not exceeded its recommended storage date prior to administration for one sampled resident (Resident #45). The failure had the potential to result in residents not receiving their full dose of ordered insulin. The facility census was 47. 1. Review of the manufacturer's instructions for use for the Novolog (insulin) FlexPen (injection cartridge device) showed the following: -Before each injection, small amounts of air may collect in the cartridge during normal use; -To avoid injection air and to ensure proper dosing, turn the dose selector to two units; -Hold the Novolog FlexPen with the needle pointing up; -Tap the cartridge gently with your finger a few times to make any air bubbles collect at the top of the cartridge; -Keep the needle…
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 before2019-08-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff washed their hands when indicated by professional standards of practice during personal care for one resident (Resident #17), in a review of 12 sampled residents and failed to ensure infection control measures were appropriately followed when staff failed to promptly disinfect surfaces that came into contact with body substances for one sampled resident and one additional resident (Residents #17 and #19). The facility census was 47. 1. Review of the Infection Control Guidelines for Long Term Care Facilities, January 2005 edition, Section 3.0, Body Substance Precautions, Subsection 3.2 Implementing the Body Substance Precautions System, provided by the facility, showed the following regarding gloves and handwashing: -Instructions should be followed by ALL personnel at all times regardless of the resident's diagnosis; -Gloves: Wear gloves when it can be reasonably anticipated that hands will be in contact with mucous membranes, non-intact skin, any moist body substances (blood, urine, feces, wound…
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 · C2024-09-18 · tag F0847 — widespreadInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all required components of an arbitration agreement were part of the facility policy. This failure affected all of the residents in the facility, as all residents had a signed arbitration agreement. The facility census was 64. Review of the undated facility admission Agreement Packet showed the following: -Alternative Dispute Resolution Addendum: This Alternative Dispute Resolution Addendum is attached to and made a part of the admission Agreement between the facility and the resident. All claims, disputes, and controversies arising out of or in any manner relating, directly or indirectly, to the resident's care or stay at the facility (in each case, a dispute) shall be subject to certain alternative dispute resolution procedures that must be exhausted prior to pursuing any other remedy that may be available. Those required alternative dispute resolution procedures are: (a) mandatory non-binding mediations; and (b) mandatory nonbinding appealable arbitration; -Each party agrees that compliance with the requirements…
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
$80,640 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 2 Medicare payment denials on record.
- $80,640 — penalty dated 2025-09-09
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-10-15 for 15 days
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-10-30 for 2 days
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ASPIRE SENIOR LIVING — 16 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 1.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CALVERT, GREGG | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | 12% | since 06/01/2021 |
| HARRIS, JERRY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | 10% | since 06/01/2021 |
| STEELE, SHERI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 06/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $273K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 265407. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-09-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.