Nathan Richard Health Care Center
700 East Highland Avenue, Nevada, MO 64772 · For profit - Corporation · 68 certified beds · (417) 667-8889 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 (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 (38) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $69,178 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-28)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (69%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 27% 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 | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 2 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 | 33.3% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.3% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 73.1% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 24.9% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 57.3% | 25.6% | 18.9% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 73.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.1% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.5% | 17.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 60.7% | 23.5% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 8.6% | 26.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.5% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.94 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.51 | 2.33 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 31% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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 | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 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 68 beds and averages 61.1 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 1.72 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.28 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.15 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 1.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 1.75 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.32 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 69% 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.
38 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2023-06-16 · 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
Based on observation, interview, document and policy review, and review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to protect 21 residents (R46, R8, R2, R5, R16, R31, R30, R22, R17, R14, R19, R35, R36, R52, R26, R43, R211, R57, R7, R38, and R10) who required blood glucose monitoring from potential blood-borne pathogens (serious infections caused by exposure to infectious organisms) by failing to disinfect the glucometers between the blood glucose testing of the 20 residents. On 06/15/23 at 2:50 PM, the Administrator and Director of Nurses (DON) were notified that the failure to ensure glucometers shared among multiple residents were disinfected with an appropriate cleaning agent that ensured the removal of blood borne pathogens and viruses constituted Immediate Jeopardy at F880: Infection Control. The facility presented an acceptable Removal Plan of the Immediate Jeopardy on 06/16/23 at 2:04 PM. The survey team validated the implementation of the Removal Plan through interviews, observations, and document review, and removed the Immediate…
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 · G2025-02-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents received care per standards of practice when staff failed to address one resident's (Resident #45) change in condition timely. The resident's baseline was alert and oriented and cognitively intact. He/she experienced a change which resulted in the resident being unable to respond to questions, unable to feed him/herself, unable to lift his his/her own feet, and unable to express his/her own desires/wishes. The staff failed to send the resident out emergently, failed to follow-up with the physician when the physician did not return an office message, and failed to reach out to the medical director regarding the change of condition on the day the changes were observed. The resident was sent out the following day after contact with the Nurse Practitioner and was admitted to the hospital for high potassium and elevated labs. The facility census was 59. Review of the facility's policy titled, Notification of Changes Policy, revised 05/14/24, showed the following: -The purpose of the policy was…
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 · G2025-02-28 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care of pressure ulcers per standards of practice, when staff failed to have processes in place to ensure consistent, accurate, and thorough wound assessments were completed upon discovery and weekly; to complete weekly wound tracking; to complete accurate and timely entries of wound treatments; and to complete wound treatments as ordered for one resident (Resident #22) who had a facility acquired wound that required wound care specialist treatment and was considered for foot amputation. The facility census was 59. Review of the facility's policy titled Wound Treatment Management Policy, reviewed 05/18/24, showed the following: -Policy purpose was to promote wound healing of various types of wounds. It was the policy of the facility to provide evidence-based treatments in accordance with current standards of practice and physician orders; -Wound treatments will be provided in accordance with physician orders, including the cleansing method, type of dressing, and frequency of dressing change; -In 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 · D2026-03-19 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to ensure each resident received necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being when the facility failed to have process in place to monitor repetitive behavior, failed to document new interventions to address repetitive behaviors, and failed to document behavioral services offered to address behaviors of one resident (Resident #1) who had continued behaviors of inappropriate language directed at or around staff and residents. The facility had a census of 62. Review of the facility policy titled, Behavioral Health Services Policy, revised 10/31/24, showed the following: -The facility is to ensure all residents receive necessary behavioral health services to assist in reaching and maintaining their highest level of mental and psychosocial functioning;-Staff are to accurately document changes in behavior, including frequency of occurrence and potential triggers in the resident's medical record;-The plan of care should be discussed for potential…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-30 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of possible abuse were reported to the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) within the required two-hour timeframe when the facility failed to report a verbal altercation/threat involving two residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2 ). Four residents were sampled. The facility census was 60.Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse and Neglect Policy, revised 06/12/24, showed the following:-It is the policy of this facility to report all allegations of abuse/neglect/exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown sources and misappropriation of resident property, immediately to the Administrator of the facility and to other appropriate agencies in accordance with current state and federal regulations within prescribed time frames;-The facility will report all alleged violations and all substantiated incidents to the state agency and to all other agencies as required, and take all necessary corrective…
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 · F2025-02-28 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — widespreadEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 consistent and sufficient Registered Nurse (RN) and Director of Nursing (DON) hours to allow the DON to complete the duties of DON when the DON frequently had to work as the charge nurse. The facility census was 59. Review of the facility's job description titled Director of Nursing, undated, showed the following: -The DON provides leadership and direction for overall medical care to provide quality patient care in accordance with all laws, regulations, and the management company; -DON duties were to oversee the nursing staff and overall nursing operations of the healthcare facility; -Duties included evaluating and directing all nursing employees, establishing goals for the nursing department, and creating and enforcing compliant healthcare policies; -Duties included overseeing key areas including financial operations, human resources, customer service, business development, and clinical and nursing administrative operations; -The DON will coordinate and provide leadership to each clinical, managerial, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-02-28 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in a manner to protect food from possible contamination, when staff failed to use effective hair restraints; failed to consistently label and date food; failed to wash hands and equipment appropriately during food prep; failed to ensure food kept in mini refrigerators in resident rooms was not expired or spoiled; and when staff failed to ensure non-food contact surfaces in the kitchen were clean and maintained in good repair. The facility census was 59. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Dietary - Receiving and Storing Food and Supplies, revised 06/30/23, showed the following: -Food items will be received and handled in accordance with good sanitary practice; -Food items will be stored, thawed, and prepared in accordance with good sanitary practice; -All products shall be dated upon receipt or when they are prepared. Use date shall be marked on all food containers according to 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 · F2025-02-28 · tag F0843 — widespreadHave an agreement with at least one or more hospitals certified by Medicare or Medicaid to make sure residents can be moved quickly to the hospital when they need medical care.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a written transfer agreement with a hospital was in effect to ensure residents timely admission to the hospital when medically appropriate and that information would be exchanged between providers. The facility census was 59. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy pertaining to written transfer agreements with a hospital or a written transfer agreement with a community hospital. During an interview on 02/27/25, at 3:30 P.M., the Administrator said he/she had not been able to locate a written transfer agreement. When the facility changed to new ownership in 2020, the facility applied at two local hospitals with no response. The facility had transfer agreements with other nursing homes and churches for emergency evacuation.
- Potential for harm · F2025-02-28 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — widespreadEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
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 continued training for certified nursing aides (CNAs) that included competency evaluation as part of the required minimum 12 hours of in-service education per year. The facility census was 59. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy related to in-service training. 1. Review of the facility's In-Service Training Records, on 02/27/25, showed no CNA competency evaluations. During an interview on 02/28/25, at 9:35 A.M., CNA L said he/she had attended in-services and training with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). They will often demonstrate during the training, but he/she was not aware of being observed for proper care of residents. During an interview on 02/27/25, at 2:50 P.M., the DON said in-services and training included in-person and online training that was assigned to each staff member. He/she did not complete competency evaluations with nursing aides. During an interview on 02/27/25, at 3:07 P.M., the Corporate Nurse said there were no nurse aide competencies completed at 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 · E2025-02-28 · 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 implement their abuse and neglect prevention policies, when they failed to complete criminal background checks (CBC) for five sampled staff (Maintenance J, Registered Nurse (RN) E, RN F, Dietary Aide (DA) H, and Housekeeper I). The facility also failed to complete employee disqualification list (EDL - a list of individual prohibited from working in a long-term care facility in Missouri due to a finding of abuse or neglect) checks for three sampled staff (RN E, RN F, and DA H) and failed to complete the Nurse Aide (NA) Registry check for two sampled staff (RN E and RN F) to ensure the staff did not have a Federal Indicator (a marker given to a potential employee who has committed abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of property against residents) prohibiting them from working in a certified facility. Ten employee records were sampled of staff hired since the last survey. The facility census was 59. Review of the facility policy titled Screening - Applicant, Employee, Volunteer and Vendor, dated 05/14/24, 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 · Ecited before2025-02-28 · 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 staff failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program, when nursing staff failed to practice proper hand hygiene and infection practices while performing wound care for three residents (Residents #22, #31, and #13) and during catheter (a tube inserted in the bladder allowing your urine to drain freely) care for one resident (Resident #45) and when staff failed to gown as required for four residents (Residents #22, #31, #13, #45 ) who had enhanced barrier precautions (EBP - precautions for use during high-contact resident care activities for residents infected with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO-microorganisms that are resistant to one or more classes of antimicrobial agents) or any resident who has a chronic wound and/or indwelling medical device) in place. The facility also failed to complete the first step of a two step tuberculosis (TB - an infectious disease caused by bacteria that most often affects the lungs 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 · E2025-02-28 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 implement an effective and complete antibiotic stewardship program, when staff failed to track residents on antibiotics for various infections in the facility by not completing a current and ongoing antibiotic log of residents with active infections including three residents (Residents #13, #31, and #45) identified as currently or recently on an antibiotic. The facility census was 59. Review of the facility policy Antibiotic Stewardship Program, revised 06/29/23, showed the following: -Purpose was to optimize antibiotic use in the nursing home and reduce unnecessary use of laboratory tests and antibiotics using a systematic approach; -At minimum, the antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) will be comprised of the Director of Nursing (DON), a nurse with administrative duties, and a charge nurse; -The antibiotic stewardship team (AST) will work closely with the Administrator, nurses, physician, and prescribing practitioners to ensure success of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · 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 all residents received care per professional standards of practice, when staff failed to have processes in place to obtain ordered blood tests in a timely fashion for one resident (Resident #17) out of a total sample of 17 residents. The facility census was 59 . Review of the facility's policy titled, Diagnostic Testing Services Policy, dated 06/26/24, showed the following: -The facility will provide the appropriate diagnostic services (laboratory and radiology) required to maintain overall health of its residents and in accordance with State and Federal guidelines; -The facility will maintain a schedule of diagnostic tests (laboratory and radiology) in accordance with the physician's orders. No diagnostic tests will be performed without specific physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist orders in accordance with State law to include scope of practice laws; -Qualified nursing personnel will receive and review the diagnostic test reports and communicate the results to 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.
Show the remaining 25 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident when staff failed to obtain and administer medications as ordered for one resident (Resident #41). The facility census was 59. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy regarding pharmacy services or obtaining medications for administration. Review of Resident #41's face sheet showed the following: -admission date of 03/1/24; -Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease stage 5 (damage to kidneys and less likely to filter waste and fluid out of the blood). Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff), dated 12/8/24, showed the following: -Cognition intact; -Renal (kidney) failure; -On a diuretic medication (a medication that increases the production and excretion of urine by the kidneys). Review of the resident's current care plan, dated 03/06/24, showed staff to administer medications as ordered. Review of the resident's physician's orders showed an…
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 before2025-02-28 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician responded in a timely manner to pharmacist recommendations during the monthly pharmacist review, when the physician did not address the pharmacist recommendation to discontinue one medication not recommended for use in the elderly due to its anticholinergic side effects (causing falls and confusion) for one resident (Resident #12) in a timely manner. The facility census was 59. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy regarding the pharmacy medication review and recommendation process. Review of Resident #12's face sheet showed the following: -admission date of 08/15/23; -Diagnoses that included cervical disc disorder with myelopathy (problems with the neck's bones, muscles, joints with symptoms of weakness, tingling, pain, and numbness in the neck or arms, and problems with coordination), heart failure, high blood pressure, chronic pain, arthritis, and retention of urine. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-28 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate not greater than 5%, when facility staff crushed extended release tablets for one resident (Resident #23) and when staff did not administer a medication for one resident (Resident #41). This resulted in two errors out of 36 opportunities and medication error rate of 5.56%. The facility census was 59. Review of the facility policy Medication Administration Policy, revised 6/26/24, showed medications that typically should not be crushed included sustained-release or extended-release medications. 1. Review of the Drugs.com warnings for Potassium Chloride, updated 02/29/24, showed the following: -Do not crush, chew, break, or suck on an extended-release tablet or capsule. Swallow the pill whole. -Breaking or crushing the pill may cause too much of the drug to be released at one time. Review of Resident #23's face sheet (a brief look at resident information), showed the following: -admission date of 10/15/20;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a complete medical record for all residents, when staff failed to document in the medical record a change in condition and transfer to the hospital for one resident (Resident #1). The facility census was 59. Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Transfer, Discharge, Immediate Discharge and Therapeutic Leave Policy, dated 05/14/24, showed with the exception of ceasing to operate, the resident's medical record must be documented with the reason(s) for any facility-initiated transfer or discharge. Review of Resident #1's face sheet (admission data) showed the following: -admission date of 02/05/25; -Diagnoses included essential hypertension (high blood pressure), edema (swelling caused by fluid building up in body tissues, and presence of cardiac pacemaker. Review of the resident's Facility Transfer Sheet, dated 02/19/25, showed the resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] for a medical reason, decreased level of function, 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 · D2025-02-28 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement policies to assure all residents were given the opportunity to receive pneumococcal vaccinations (pneumonia vaccines) when staff did not document offering the vaccine to two residents (Residents #11 and #31). The facility census was 59. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for pneumococcal vaccine, dated 10/26/24, showed the following: -There are two types of vaccines recommended to help prevent pneumococcal disease in adults; -One type of vaccine is the pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs): PCV15,PCV20,and PCV21; -One type of vaccine is the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23); -For older adults who received PCV13 and PPSV23, they have the option to get PCV20 or PCV21, or to not get additional pneumococcal vaccines. They can get PCV20 or PCV21 if they've already received both the PCV13 (but not PCV15 or PCV20) at any age or PPSV23 at or after the age of 65 years. These adults can talk with a vaccine provider and decide together, whether to get…
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 before2023-06-16 · 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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to keep the light covers above the steam table and food preparation table clean; failed to seal opened bags of food; failed to discard dented cans of food; and failed to ensure food storage containers were clean. These failures had the potential to affect 57 residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Receiving and Storing Food and Supplies, dated 10/12/21, revealed: Do not accept and return to the supplier, any item that is: In dented, rusty, damaged cans . Dented or bulging cans shall be placed on Damaged Goods Shelf and returned for credit. Any opened products shall be placed in seamless plastic or glass containers with tight-fitting lids or Ziploc bags. Open products may also be sealed utilizing plastic film or tape. Review of the, undated, Dietary Manger's Job Description revealed the following duties: Inventories incoming food and supplies, . Inspects Dietary Department regularly to ensure…
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 · E2023-06-16 · 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 observations, interviews, record review, and tasting of foods on a requested test tray, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at an appetizing temperature for five (Resident (R) 26, R48, R50, R52, and R17) out of a total of 37 residents. This failure had the potential to affect residents on one of two halls who were served room trays. The facility census was 58. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 06/12/23 at 11:56 A.M., R26 stated he ate all his/her meals in his/her room. R26 specified that the evening meals were not hot. Review of R26's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/14/23, located under the MDS tab. The assessment recorded a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 for R26, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. 2. During an interview on 06/12/23 at 12:40 P.M., R48 stated he/she ate his/her meals in his/her room. R48 specifically stated that the food was of poor quality. Review of R48's EMR revealed a quarterly MDS…
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 · D2023-06-16 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to update the electronic medical record (EMR) and Nurse Aide (NA) reference book for one of one resident (Resident (R) 46) reviewed for Advance Directives to reflect the resident's choice to change from a full code(life saving measures including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to a do not resuscitate(DNR) status out of a total sample of 37 residents. The failure to update the EMR and NA reference book increased the risk that R46's end of life wishes would not be honored and unwanted care and services would be provided. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the EMR for R46, under the Census tab, revealed R46 had an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including hepatitis and diabetes. Under the Miscellaneous tab, the EMR banner indicated R46 was a full code. On [DATE], R46 created a new document titled, Out of the Hospital-Do Not Resuscitate orders indicating he desired to be No Code status. Review of the NA book at in 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 · Dcited before2023-06-16 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a notice of bed hold to two (Resident (R) 46 and R29) of two sampled residents reviewed who were transferred to the hospital. The facility census was 58. Findings include: The facility policy titled, Resident Transfer/Discharge, Immediate Discharge, and Therapeutic Leave, with a revision date of 07/12/22, directed III. Notice of Bed Hold . provide to the resident or their legal representative, a written copy of the bed hold policy . 1. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R46, under the Census tab, revealed an admission date of 10/22/22 and diagnoses including hepatitis and diabetes. Review of the Census tab of the EMR revealed R46 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], 03/12/23, and 04/25/23. The EMR Miscellaneous tab lacked evidence that the facility provided R46 with the bed hold policy at these transfers to the hospital. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/15/23 at…
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 · D2023-06-16 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for three of fifteen sampled residents (Resident (R) R9, R10, and R36) for oxygen usage, communication, and behavior management out of a total sample of 37 residents These failures created the potential for medical and psychosocial needs to be unmet. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans and Baseline Care Plans, revised on 01/19/22 revealed, Purpose: The purpose of this policy is ensure that the facility must develops [sic] a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. 1. Review of R10's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including deaf nonspeaking. Review of R10's quarterly Minimum Data…
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 · D2023-06-16 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a care plan for falls was updated for one of one resident (Resident (R) 38) reviewed for falls. After a fall there were no updates or interventions added to R38's care plan. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Focus Risk Assessment Plan Scope/ Severity for Falls (FRAPSS), with a revision date of 07/09/21, revealed, Purpose: To assess all residents for potential for falls in the facility . To identify precipitating factors for fall risk and be proactive in implementing interventions to prevent or reduce the incident of further falls . Review of the facility policy titled, Post Fall Protocol, with a revision date of 02/26/21, revealed Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to ensure that all residents who have had a fall have accurate assessment and follow through to prevent further injury and recurrence of falls. Procedures . 9. Update care plan to include individualized interventions with date . During an interview on 06/12/23 at 10:45 A.M., R38 was…
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 · D2023-06-16 · 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 interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an incident report and investigation was completed following a fall for one of one resident (Resident (R)38) reviewed for falls. This failure placed the resident at greater risk of more falls and not know the reason for the falls. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Focus Risk Assessment Plan Scope/ Severity for Falls (FRAPSS), with a revision date of 07/09/21 revealed, Purpose: To assess all residents for potential for falls in the facility . To identify precipitating factors for fall risk and be proactive in implementing interventions to prevent or reduce the incident of further falls . Procedure: Focus Risk Assessment Plan Scope/Severity for Falls: 1. Resident will be assessed using the FRAPSS form for fall risks upon admission, quarterly and in an acute situation where resident has fallen. The FRAPSS assessment guide measures areas of precipitating factors such as age, use of assistive devices, diagnoses, medical antecedents, history of previous…
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 · D2023-06-16 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 maintain infection control measure for the storage and changing of oxygen tubing for two of two (Residents (R) 9 and R52) residents reviewed for respiratory care. Oxygen tubing was stored without being placed in a bag and was not changed weekly. The facility census was 58. Findings include: 1. Review of R9's ''Profile'' tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an undated ''admission Record'' which indicated R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including shortness of breath and wheezing. Review of the EMR ''Orders'' tab revealed a ''Physician Order,'' dated 12/08/20, for ''O2 [Oxygen] at 2 LPM [liters per minute] per nasal cannula as needed for shortness of breath.'' During observation and interview on 06/13/23 at 9:10 A.M., R9's nasal cannula was wrapped up with the tubing and placed on the water bottle attached to the oxygen concentrator. The date 06/04/23 was written on humidification (water) bottle. R9…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-16 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacist recommendations were acted upon for two of five residents (Residents (R)38 and R41) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The pharmacist made recommendations to discontinue medication and to add some direction to another for R38 and R41. This deficient practice had the potential to allow residents to continue medications may have adverse consequences. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Monthly Drug Regimen Review, with a revision date of 07/05/22, revealed Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to monitor the resident's medication on a monthly basis to ensure any irregularities are corrected to protect the resident. Procedure. 6. The. Director of nursing will forward the pharmacists' recommendations to the attending physician within 48 hours of receiving the recommendation. The DON will document the date and time that the physician was notified of the recommendation. 7. lf the attending physician does not respond to the recommendation within…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-16 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5% due to two medication errors (Resident (R) 46 and R31) out of 27 medications observed delivered to residents. The facility's medication error rate was 7.4%. The facility's failure to follow the manufacturer's instructions to prime the insulin pens resulted in incorrect insulin dosing and failure to follow physician orders. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration, with a revision date of 07/09/21, revealed the policy lacked instruction to the staff of how to administer insulin using a pre-filled insulin pen with needle set. Review of the manufacturer's instructions for the use of the Novalog insulin pen, dated 02/2023, directed that the insulin pen needle set required an air shot of two units of insulin to prime the needle set. Priming the needle set removes air bubbles from the needle set and ensures the dose ordered is administered. 1. Review…
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 before2020-11-06 · 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 protect food from possible contamination when staff failed to ensure the air gap for two ice machines in the facility had the required two inch gap between the drain in the floor and the tubing from the ice machine. The facility had a census of 38 residents. 1. Record review of the 2017 Food Code, issued by the Food and Drug Administration, showed an air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the plumbing fixture, equipment, or non-food equipment shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than 1 inch. Observation on 11/03/2020, at 12:23 P.M., showed the ice machine in the kitchen had the following: -Ice machine located near the kitchen door had two drain pipes below the floor level; -One pipe was less than two inches from the drain with approximately one inch air gap; -The second pipe had fallen loose and touched the drain with no air gap. Observation on 11/04/2020, at 1:15 P.M., showed the ice machine in a small storage room behind the nurses'…
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 · E2020-11-06 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a risk assessment to include alternative interventions attempted prior to the use of side rails, obtain informed consent for the use of side rails, and failed to complete a bed rail safety check to include measurements of the bed frame and bed rails for risk of entrapment for four residents (Resident #1, #2, #5 and #36) out of a sample of 16 residents. The facility census was 38. Record review of the facility's policy entitled, Bed Siderails (last revised 11/2017) showed the policy included the following information: -Purpose: To ensure all bed side rails in use have been evaluated for safety; -All residents using any size siderail device on their beds will have a Restraint/Entrapment Assessment completed to determine the restraining, enabling, or hazard effect of the device. This assessment will occur upon initial use, quarterly, and as needed if there is a significant change in the resident's condition; -If the assessment…
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 before2020-11-06 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% when the facility staff made four errors out of 25 opportunities resulting in an error rate of 16% when staff failed to prime the insulin pens for three residents (Resident #9, #14, and #25). The facility census was 38. Record review of the Novolog Flexpen (name brand for insulin aspart [rDNA origin] injection) manufacturer's website, dated May 2016, showed the product is a man-made insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes. Instruction for use included the following: -Pull off the pen cap and wipe the rubber stopper with an alcohol swab; -Attach a new needle, pull of the paper tab, push and twist the needle on until it is tight. Pull off both needle caps; -Prime the pen - Turn the dose selector to select two units. Press and hold the dose button. Make sure a drop appears; -Select the dose - Turn the dose selector to select the number of units you need 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 · E2020-11-06 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors when staff failed to prime insulin pens for three residents (Resident #9, #14, and #25) during random medication pass observations. The facility had a census of 38. Record review of the Novolog Flexpen (name brand for insulin aspart [rDNA origin] injection) manufacturer's website, dated May 2016, showed the following information: -This product is a man-made insulin used to control high blood glucose levels (sugar) in adults and children with diabetes mellitus; -Instruction for use include; -Pull off the pen cap and wipe the rubber stopper with an alcohol swab; -Attach a new needle. Pull off the paper tab. Push and twist the needle on until it is tight. Pull off both needle caps; -Prime the pen. Turn the dose selector to select 2 units. Press and hold the dose button. Make sure a drop appears; -Select the dose. Turn the dose selector to select the number of units you need 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 · E2020-11-06 · 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, the facility failed to store medications according to professional standards and manufacturer's guidelines when staff failed to note when a vial of insulin was opened for three residents (Resident #11, #25, and #26 ) and failed to discard expired or discontinued insulin for one resident (Resident #11). The facility census was 38. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, dated [DATE], showed the policy included the following information: -Medication must be administered per physicians' orders. All medications are recorded on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and signed immediately after the resident has taken the medications. -The nurse or certified medication technician (CMT) will check each medication to the MAR noting correct name of medication, correct resident name, correct dose, correct time, and correct route of administration; -For all medications, except for pre-packaged bubble cards or pre-packed unit dose…
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 before2020-11-06 · 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 procedures to prevent or reduce the risk of spreading bacteria or other infectious causing contaminants, when staff failed to use appropriate hand hygiene during incontinence care for two residents (Resident #2 and #40), failed to perform hand hygiene when assisting multiple residents and failed to wear facemasks appropriately with meal trays and meal assistance, including seven residents (Resident #1, #4, #12, #14, #16, #18, and #34) in the dining room, failed to use appropriate hand hygiene during blood glucose testing and/or failed to properly disinfect glucometers (small hand-held devices that check blood glucose levels in residents) between resident use for eight residents (Resident #9, #11, #14, #15, #21, #24, #25, and #40) and failed to complete appropriate hand hygiene during medication administration for two residents (Resident #14 and #25). Additionally, staff failed to pre-clean the rubber…
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 · D2020-11-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff treated residents with dignity and respect when they did not provide a dignity bag for one resident (Resident #5) with an indwelling urinary catheter (tubing placed internally to drain the bladder). A sample of 12 residents was selected for review; the facility census was 38. Record review of the facility's (undated) policy titled, Nursing Urinary Catheter Care, showed the following information: -Resident with indwelling catheters will receive catheter care every shift or as ordered by the physician; -Catheter bags are to be placed in privacy bags to promote the resident's dignity. 1. Record review of Resident #5's face sheet (general information at a quick glance) showed the following information: -admission date of 10/19/2015; -Diagnoses included: End stage renal disease (last stage of kidney disease); neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (dysfunction of the bladder due to disease or injury of the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) involved in the control of urination); benign…
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 · D2020-11-06 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative in writing of a transfer or discharge to the hospital, including the reason for the transfer, for two residents (Resident #31 and #36). A sample of 16 residents was selected for review out of a facility with a census of 38. Record review of the facility's policy entitled, Resident Transfer/Discharge, Immediate Discharge, and Therapeutic Leave Policy (last revised 5/2018), showed the following information: -Residents who are sent emergently to the hospital are considered facility-initiated transfers because the resident's return is generally expected; -Before any resident is transferred or discharged under a Facility-Initiated Transfer or Discharge, the facility must: -Notify the resident and the resident representative the reason for the transfer or discharge in writing in a manner they understand; -Notify a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; -The written notice…
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 before2020-11-06 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide written information to the resident and/or resident's representative of the facility's bed hold policy for two residents (Resident #31 and #36). A sample of 16 residents was selected for review out of a facility with a census of 38. Record review of the facility's policy entitled, Resident Transfer/Discharge, Immediate Discharge, and Therapeutic Leave Policy (last revised 5/2018), showed the following information: -When a resident is transferred to the hospital or other location or when the resident goes on therapeutic leave, the facility must provide to the resident or their legal representative, a written copy of the bed hold policy. This notice must be given at the time of transfer, or within 24 hours of emergency transfers; -Documentation that the bed hold policy was provided must be put in the resident's medical record. This documentation shall include how and when the notice was issued; -The bed hold policy must provide information to 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.
- No harm found · C2023-06-16 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and review of the Facility Assessment and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the Facility Assessment was reviewed and updated. This deficient practice could allow the facility to use resources and provide the needed services for residents. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Facility Assessment Policy and tool, revised 07/09/21, revealed Purpose: The facility must conduct and document and [sic] facility wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents completely during both day to day operations and emergencies. The facility must update the Facility Assessment Monthly and as necessary whenever there is, or the facility plans for any change that would require a substantial modification to any part of this assessment. Review of the Facility Assessment Tool provided by the facility revealed a review date of 02/18/22. During an interview on 06/16/23 at 2:27 P.M., the Administrator was asked about how often the Facility Assessment should be reviewed. The Administrator stated,…
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
$69,178 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $69,178 — penalty dated 2025-02-28
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 RELIANT CARE MANAGEMENT — 34 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 | 1.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 33 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.2★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| RELIANT CARE GROUP LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/01/2020 |
| RCG INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/01/2020 |
| RICHARD J DESTEFANE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2020 |
| DESTEFANE, RICHARD | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2020 |
| RELIANT CARE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/27/2025 |
| ARSHAD, ABDULLAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/15/2024 |
| WILLIS, LAWRENCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/24/2020 |
| NEVADA ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2020 |
| TLG II LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
6 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 92% 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 $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 27% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265558. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-28, 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.