New Haven Care Center
9503 Highway 100, New Haven, MO 63068 · Non profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (573) 237-2103 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 30.4% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.3% | 5.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 6.7% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 9.9% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.8% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.2% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.1% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.2% | 25.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.7% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.9% | 17.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.2% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.8% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.9% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.30 | 2.33 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
43.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 38.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 26 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 14% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 43.5%CMS range 32.9–55.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.3%CMS range 8.1–17.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 38.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 38.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 42.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 | 20.0% | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 3.0–11.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.66 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 67.1 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 23 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.09 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.59 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.29 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-21 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain professional standards of care when they failed to utilize the electronic medication administration record (eMAR), while administering insulin to three residents (Resident # 2, 18 and 20), and failed to document insulin dosages for five residents (#2, #18, #20, #24 and #30). Staff failed to administer extended release medication per pharmacy recommendations for one resident (Resident 8), who was unable to swallow pills, and failed to obtain a physician's order for oxygen for one resident (Resident #63) out of 30 sampled residents. The facility census was 69 . 1. Review of Medication Administration policy, undated, directed staff to utilize the MAR to select medications from the resident's medication slot. Verify the drug name, dose and route on the medication label with the MAR/physician order. Document administration and any essential information on the MAR immediately after administering the medication. Consult Pharmacy 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 · Ecited before2023-12-15 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to ensure five residents (Residents #7, #29, #36, #65 and #276), who were unable to complete their own activities of daily living (ADLs), received the necessary care and services to maintain good personal hygiene. The facility census was 66. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Activities of Daily Living, dated 06/20/23, showed staff shall provide grooming, bathing and assistance with eating. A resident who is unable to carry out ADL's will receive necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, personal and oral hygiene. Review of the facility's policy titled, Nail Care, dated 11/15/22, showed staff shall provide routine cleaning and inspection of nails during ADL care on an ongoing basis. Nail care will be provided between scheduled occasions as the need arises. 2. Review of Resident #7's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 11/21/23, showed staff assessed the resident as follows:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to provide a safe mechanical lift transfer for one residents (Residents #6), failed to provide appropriate diet and supervision during meal service to prevent a choking hazard for one resident (Resident #57) and failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards when the facility staff left sharps and toxic chemicals were stored in a manner not accessible to residents. The facility census was 66. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe Resident Handling/Transfers, dated 06/20/23, showed staff were directed to do the following: -It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents are handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risks for injury and provide and promote a safe, secure and comfortable experience for the resident while keeping the employees safe in accordance with current standards and guidelines; -All residents require safe handling when transferred to prevent or minimize 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 · D2023-12-15 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to ensure one resident (Resident #12) received the necessary services and assistance to maintain his/her nutritional status to prevent a significant weight loss. The facility census was 66. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Weight Monitoring, dated 06/20/23, showed staff were directed to do the following: -Based on the resident's comprehensive assessment, the facility will ensure that all residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or resident preferences indicate otherwise; -Interventions will be identified, implemented, monitored and modified (as appropriate), consistent with the resident's assessed needs, choices, preferences, goals and current professional standards to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status; -The newly recorded resident weight should be compared to the previous recorded weight. A…
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 · D2023-12-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to use appropriate infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection, when staff failed to perform hand hygiene between glove changes during the provision of care for two residents (Resident #12 and #6) and wiped one resident (Resident #6) multiple times with the same portion of a disposable wipe. The facility census was 66. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene, dated 06/21/23, showed staff were directed: -All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. This applies to all staff working in all locations within the facility; -The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene. If your task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, and immediately after removing gloves. 2. Observation on 12/12/23 at 3:20 P.M., showed Registered Nurse (RN) C and Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) F entered Resident #12's room to provide perineal care. CNA F provided perineal care, removed his/her gloves,…
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 · F2022-11-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed perform hand hygiene as often as necessary to prevent cross-contamination. Facility staff also failed to wash, rinse, and sanitize the food processor and the food preparation sink between uses to prevent cross-contamination and the growth of food-borne pathogens. This had the potential to affect all residents. The census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's Hand hygiene policy, dated 2019, showed: - Staff will perform hand hygiene when indicated, using proper technique consistent with accepted standards of practice; - The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene; - If your task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning (putting on) gloves, and immediately after removing gloves. Observation on 11/1/22 at 11:02 A.M., showed [NAME] K used a gloved hand to touch sliced cheese and placed it on a hamburger on the grill. Further observation showed the cook touched the oven door handles and other food related items. He/She continued to touch sliced cheese for resident sandwiches. [NAME] K did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-11-04 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility failed to provide a written notice of discharge/ transfer to the resident and/or resident representative when three residents (Residents #11, #31, and #60) were transferred to the hospital. The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's Transfer and Discharge (including Against Medical Advice (AMA) Policy, revised 11/30/21, showed: -For non-emergency transfers or discharges that are initiated by the facility, the Social Services Director will notify the resident and the resident's representative in writing at least 30 days before the resident is transferred or discharged ; -For emergency transfers or discharges nursing should document information, in regards to transfers, in the medical record. The resident and resident representative shall be provided with the facility's bed hold policy within 24 hours of the transfer. Review showed the policy did not contain information on notifying the resident and/or resident representative in writing for an emergency transfer. 2. Review of Resident #11's progress notes, dated 9/19/22,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-11-04 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to provide written information to the resident and/or resident's representative of the facility's bed hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for three residents (Resident's #11, #31, and #60). The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's Bed Hold Notice Upon Transfer Policy, dated 6/6/17, showed the facility will provide the resident and/or the resident representative, at the time of transfer for hospitalization or therapeutic leave, written notice which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy. Review of the facility's Transfer and Discharge (including Against Medical Advice (AMA) policy, revised 11/30/21, showed the facility will provide the resident and resident's representative the facility's bed hold policy within 24 hours of the transfer, for emergency transfers/discharges. 2. Review of Resident #11's progress notes, dated 9/19/22, showed the resident was transferred to the hospital. Further review showed staff did not document they notified the resident or the resident's representative of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-11-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to identify services necessary to meet the medical, and nursing needs for six residents (Resident #9, #11, #25, #57, #60 and #61) when staff failed to include splint use, code status, oxygen use, facial hair and nail care preferences, blood sugar monitoring, and surgical wound care on the residents' comprehensive care plans. Additionally, staff failed to develop a baseline care plan for one resident (Resident #60). The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plan policy dated October 2022, showed: -It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment; -The comprehensive care plan will describe, at minimum, the following: -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 before2022-11-04 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to ensure residents that were unable to complete their own activities of daily living (ADLs), received the necessary care and services to maintain good personal hygiene when staff failed to provide hair care and nail care to five residents (Residents #1, #10, #11, #20 and #57). The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), dated 12/21, showed: -Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living with bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care; -A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. 2. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 8/30/22, showed staff assessed the resident as follows: -Severely impaired cognition; -Required extensive assistance from one…
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 before2022-11-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to properly propel three residents (Resident #23, #27, and #43) in wheelchairs in a manner to prevent accidents. The facility census was 60. 1. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 12:30 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility did not have a wheelchair safety policy. 2. Review of Resident #23's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 8/4/22, showed staff assessed the resident for: -Cognitively impaired; -Required extensive assistance of one staff member for locomotion; -Had an impairment of both lower extremities; -Used a wheelchair. Observation on 11/3/22 at 10:07 A.M., showed Certified Nurses Aide/Certified Medication Technician (CNA/CMT) A pushed the resident from his/her room to the dining room in a wheelchair with foot pedals. Further observation, showed the resident's feet were in between the foot pedals and the left foot dragged on the floor. Observation on 11/3/22 at 11:37 A.M.,…
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 · D2022-11-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain the dignity of two residents (Resident #10 and #27) by failing to change urinary catheter (a tube inserted in the bladder to drain urine) bags (bags that are used to cover the urine collection bag at the end of a urinary catheter) that were wet and stained. The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's Dignity Policy, implemented October of 2022, showed staff are directed as follows: -It is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity; -All staff are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity; -When interacting with a resident, pay attention to the resident as an individual; 2. Review of the facility's Catheter Care Policy, revised May of 2022, showed staff are directed as follows: -It is the policy of this facility to ensure residents with indwelling catheters receive appropriate catheter care and maintain…
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 · D2022-11-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment for residents on the 300 Hall, when staff failed to ensure the residents' rooms were maintained and free of odor. The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's Safe and Homelike Environment, dated 2017, showed: -In accordance with resident's rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, allowing the resident to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible; -Minimize odors by disposing of soiled linens promptly and reporting lingering odors and bathrooms needing cleaning to the Housekeeping Department; -Report any unresolved environmental concerns to the Administrator. Review of the facility's Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity policy, dated 10/22, showed: -It is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZYDIAK, GREGORY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/09/2025 |
| TRITCH, CHARLES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/09/2025 |
| ANDERSON, TOM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/01/2015 |
| BAUCHE, WARREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/11/2011 |
| HOEMEYER, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/20/2023 |
| KUHN, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/11/2011 |
| SCHOWE, DOROTHY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/25/2019 |
| ZOBRIST, LAUREN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/08/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265415. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-21, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.