Riverview Nursing Center
10303 State Road C, Mokane, MO 65059 · For profit - Individual · 60 certified beds · (573) 676-3136 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Mar 2024
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 24% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 21.4% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 5.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.5% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 77.2% | 18.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.1% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 30.7% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.5% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 12.0% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.0% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 55.4% | 23.5% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 50.0% | 63.5% | 79.4% | worse |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 61% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 60 beds and averages 39.1 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 21 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.25 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.55 on weekdays — 29% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 64% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-21 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to prevent the commingling of 13 residents' (Resident #10, #33, #34, #38, #42, #43, #44, #45, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50) personal funds with the facility operating funds out of 37 sampled residents. The facility census was 37. Review of the facility's policy titled Conveyance of Resident Funds, revised 05/21, showed the residents personal funds and a final accounting of funds are returned to the resident, the resident representative, or the resident's estate as applicable within 30 days from the date of the resident's discharge from the facility or death. Should a resident pay for services which then retroactively become Medicare/Medicaid eligible, the facility promptly refunds the amount charged to the resident for those services as soon as the facility receives the intermediary's payment. Inquiries concerning refunds are referred to the administrator or Business Office Manager (BOM). Review of the facility-maintained Accounts Receivable Aging report, dated 05/19/25, showed the following residents with personal funds held 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 · E2025-05-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to store medications in a safe manner when staff failed to ensure expired insulin vials were not stored with current resident medications, and failed to ensure medications were not loose in one medication cart out of two sampled. The facility census was 37. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Labeling and Storage, dated February 2023, showed multi-dose vials that have been opened or accessed (e.g., needle punctured) are dated and discarded within 28 days unless the manufacturer specifies a shorter or longer date for the open vial. Medications and biologicals are stored in the packaging, containers or other dispensing systems in which they are received. Only the issuing pharmacy is authorized to transfer medications between containers. Medications are stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, carts, or automatic dispensing systems. Each resident's medications are assigned to an individual cubicle, drawer, or other…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-13 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, facility staff failed to prevent the misappropriation of money from one resident's, out of four sampled residents, (Resident #1) checking account when Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) A stole checks from the resident, and had a third party cash the checks, without authorization of the resident. The facility census was 34. The administrator was notified on 3/13/24 of past Non-Compliance which occurred on 2/05/24. On 2/05/24, the administrator suspected CNA A used a resident's debit card to make multiple purchases from businesses, without the authorization of the resident. Upon discovery, staff suspended CNA A on 2/05/24. The facility conducted an investigation, in-serviced all staff on the facility's abuse, neglect, and misappropriation policies on 2/5/24, and terminated CNA A on 2/7/24 for violation of facility policy. 1. Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation Policy, undated, showed the facility will assure all residents, responsible parties, and staff understand there is zero tolerance of verbal, sexual, physical, or mental…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-01-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to store food in a manner to protect from potential contamination and out-dated use. Facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene as often as necessary using approved techniques to prevent cross-contamination. Facility staff failed to allow sanitized dishes to air dry prior to stacking in storage and use to prevent the growth of food-borne pathogens and cross-contamination. The facility staff also failed to wear hair restraints to protect food and food contact surfaces from potential contamination. The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the facility's Food Storage (Dry, Refrigerated, and Frozen) policy dated 2016, showed: -All food items will be labeled. The label must include the name of the food and date by which it should be sold, consumed, or discarded. -Discard food that has passed the expiration date, and discard food that has been prepared in the facility after seven days of storing under proper refrigeration. -Leftover contents of cans and prepared food will be stored in covered, labeled 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 before2023-01-27 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, facility staff failed to keep eight residents (Resident #6, #11, #14, #15, #17, #38, #189 and #190) from going into a negative balance, which allowed the residents to spend another resident's money without written authorization and failed to maintain written authorization to manage funds for two residents (Resident #1 and #18). The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the facility's Management of Resident's Personal Funds policy, revised in March 2021 showed: -Should the resident elect to have the facility manage his or her personal funds, it is authorized in writing by the resident or the resident's representative, and a copy of such authorization is documented in the resident's medical record; -The resident is informed in advance of any charges imposed to his or her personal funds. 2. Review of the facility's maintained Trust Account Statement for the period 01/01/21 through 12/31/22, showed Resident #6's account went into a negative balance on the following dates: -On 04/30/22 the balance was -$37.20; -On 10/31/22 the balance was -$11.55. 3.…
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 · E2023-01-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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, staff interview, and record review, facility staff failed to provide a safe, clean, homelike and comfortable environment when staff failed to maintain resident rooms, common areas and the building structure clean and in good repair. The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the maintenance director's inspection checklist for residents' rooms for the month of January, 2023 showed rooms #12, ##13, #21, #15, #18, #34, #25, and #23 were checked off as not needing repairs or maintenance. Observation on 1/24/23 at 10:42 A.M., showed the floor of room [ROOM NUMBER] with food and debris on it. Further observation showed ants crawling on the sink and the sink vanity. The transition strip from the hall flooring into the room was tall and in disrepair. The wall trim was off and lay on the floor. Additionally, residents were observed to have difficulty pushing their wheelchairs over the floor strip. Observation on 1/24/23 at 11:00 A.M., showed the floor of room [ROOM NUMBER] with a black/brown sticky…
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 · E2023-01-27 · 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, facility staff failed to ensure hazardous chemicals were stored in safe manner not accessible to residents, failed to provide safe mechanical lift transfers for two residents (Residents #11 and #12) and failed to propel two residents (Residents #27 and #8) in a wheelchair in a manner to prevent accidents. The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the facility's policies provided showed the staff did not provide a policy for the storage of chemicals. Observation on 01/24/23 at 9:35 A.M., showed the door to room [ROOM NUMBER] unlocked and unattended by staff. Observation showed the room under construction and used for the storage of toxic chemicals which included paint, floor adhesive, and disinfectant spray. Observation showed residents traversed in the hallway by the room. Observation on 1/25/23 at 10:00 A.M., showed an unused shower room was unlocked and unattended by staff. Further observation showed the room contained a open pine scented cleaning solution…
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 · E2023-01-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to provide oxygen as ordered by the physician for one resident (Resident #4). The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the facility's Oxygen Administration policy, revised October 2010, showed: -Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders for oxygen administration; -Review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident; -Did not include usage of oxygen concentrators or BiPAP. Review of Resident #4's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated resident assessment tool, dated 01/04/23, showed facility staff assessed the resident as follows: -Cognitively intact; -Diagnoses included pneumonia, chronic lung disease, obesity, atrial fibrillation (rapid beating of upper heart chambers), coronary (heart) artery disease, heart failure; -Received oxygen while a resident and while not a resident; -Used BiPAP/CPAP while a resident and while not a resident. Review of Resident #4's Physician Orders, dated January 2023 showed an order for…
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 · E2023-01-27 · tag F0728 — failed to protect against nurse-aide misconduct — patternEnsure that nurse aides who have worked more than 4 months, are trained and competent; and nurse aides who have worked less than 4 months are enrolled in appropriate training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure five Nurse Aides (NA) ( NA H, NA J, NA M, NA N and NA O) completed the nurse aide training program within four months of their employment in the facility. The census was 35. 1. Review of the facility's Nurse Aide Qualifications and Training Requirements Policy, revised May 2019, showed the following: -The facility will not employ any individual as a nurse aide for more than four (4) months full-time, temporary, per diem, or otherwise; -That individual is competent to provide designated nursing care and nursing related services; -That individual has completed a training program and competency evaluation program, or a competency evaluation program approved by the state; -That individual has been deemed competent as provided in 483.150(a) and (b) of the Requirements of Participation. 2. Review of NA H's personnel file showed the following: -Date of hire as an NA was 6/22/22; -No documentation the NA had completed the nurse aide training program. 3. Review of NA J's personnel file showed the following: -Date of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-01-27 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review facility staff failed to provide alternative meals for residents which accommodated the residents' preferences. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the resident council minutes from 12/27/22 through 1/23/23 showed the council addressed food preferences with the facility staff. 2. Observation on 1/24/23 at 12:05 P.M., showed the menu board in the dining area to have peanut butter and jelly sandwiches posted as the only alternative to the main menu item. 3. During an interview on 1/24/23 at 10:45 A.M., Resident #12 said the facility only offers a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for an alternative meal so if he/she does not like the main menu item he/she does not eat. During an interview on 01/24/23 at 11:35 A.M., Resident #23 said sometimes the food is undercooked and cold. He/She said facility staff give him/her sausage even though he/she doesn't like it, but he/she did not know he/she could ask for something different. During an interview on 1/24/23 at 11:44…
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 · E2023-01-27 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to follow appropriate infection control procedures to prevent the spread of bacteria or other infectious causing contaminants when staff failed to remove soiled gloves and/or perform hand hygiene during the provision of care for two residents (Residents #12 and #16). The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene Policy, revised August 2019, showed staff are directed to use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: -before and after direct contact with residents; -before performing any non-surgical invasive procedures; -before and after handling an invasive device (e.g., urinary catheters, IV access sites); -before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc.; -before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care; -after contact with a resident's intact skin; -after contact with blood or bodily fluids; -after handling…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-01-27 · tag F0888 — widespreadEnsure staff are vaccinated for COVID-19
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to implement policies and procedures to ensure 100% of staff were fully vaccinated for COVID-19 (a highly contagious virus that causes serious illness or death) or have been granted a qualifying exemption, or have a temporary delay as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for two employees (Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) D and CNA D). The facility census was 35. 1. Review of facility's Covid-19 Vaccine Policies and Procedures, updated 4/22, showed: -Per the CMS Memorandum - Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety & Overight Group Ref: QSO-22-09-All Date: January 14,2022: -Within 60 after the issuance of this memorandum, if the facility demonstrates that less than 100% of all staff have received at least one dose of a single-dose vaccine, or all doses of a multiple-dose vaccine series, or have been granted a qualifying exemption, or identified as having a temporary delay as recommended by the CDC, the facility is non-compliant under the rule. Review of the facility's records 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CIRCLE B ENTERPRISES — 36 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 1.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
The other 35 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIRCLE B ENTERPRISES HOLDING COMPANY INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/1996 |
| BEDELL, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/1996 |
| BEAIRD, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| AGH1 LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/25/2025 |
| SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/06/2025 |
| CROSS, JOSHUA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/21/2023 |
| DUDENHOEFFER, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2023 |
| BEDELL, BRYAN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/12/2025 |
| DCB REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| FG LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/02/2016 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2021 |
| MID STATES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2010 |
| MOKANE REAL ESTATE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| VAN DE VEN LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2000 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 82% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $701K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 265434. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-21, 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.