No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Monroe Manor

200 South St, Paris, MO 65275 · Government - County · 119 certified beds · (660) 327-4125 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (660) 327-4125 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
$35,360 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • the CMS record shows $35,360 in federal fines (most recent 2024-03-14)
  • nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
102 E Marion St · (660) 327-4911 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
223 N Main St · (660) 327-4514 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
620 S Main St · (660) 327-4700 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
100 N Main St · (660) 327-2019

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 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 improved from 4 to 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased16.7%18.1%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight10.0%5.3%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.7%1.1%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.9%2.3%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.9%18.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.1%4.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened10.3%17.4%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication11.2%25.6%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine92.8%90.9%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers9.7%4.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control17.8%17.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table25.6%23.5%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.3%2.2%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine69.6%63.5%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission17.1%26.0%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.2%13.7%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.472.111.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.582.331.80better

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.

52.1% 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 110 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

52.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
45.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.19U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.09hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 45.2% 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 42 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 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF52.1%CMS range 42.4–61.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.8%CMS range 9.1–16.410.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge45.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge40.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge40.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified96.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened11.7%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.2%CMS range 5.2–12.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.711.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.25
RN hours/ resident / day
0.98
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.23
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.46
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.12
RN hoursweekends
61.4%
Total nursing turnover
50.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 119 beds and averages 81.9 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 37 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.46 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.25 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.23 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 2.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.30 to 0.12 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%.

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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-09)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-03-14)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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 · Ecited before2026-04-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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 follow current infection control standards for six residents (Residents #87, #4, #75, #1, #53, and #18), in a review of 20 sampled residents, when staff failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions (EBP, precautions for use during high-contact resident care activities for residents infected with a multi drug resistant organism (MDRO) or any resident who has a chronic wound and/or indwelling medical device) to prevent infection while providing personal care, failed to ensure urinary catheter (a flexible tube inserted into the bladder) tubing was not on the floor, failed to ensure oxygen tubing was properly stored when not in use, and failed to follow the facility's policy and procedure for handwashing, gloving, handling of linens and respiratory therapy. The facility census was 82. Review of the facility's undated policy, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, showed the following:-This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-09 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure 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, observation, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards and the facility's policy/procedure for failing to complete a dressing change per proper technique for one resident (Resident #53) who had surgical wound and history of infection in the surgical wound which had recently been treated with antibiotics, in a review of 20 sampled residents. The facility census was 82. Review of the facility's undated clean dressing change checkoff showed the following:-Verify and review physician's orders;-Remove dirty dressing and place in trash can;-Clean wound with gauze and cleaning solution using a single outward strokes and separate gauze for each cleansing wipe;-Use dry gauze to pat the wound;-Apply clean dressing as ordered. Review of the National Library of Medicine, MedlinePlus.gov, last reviewed on 01/21/25, showed the following steps should be followed when changing a wet to dry dressing:-Pour saline into a clean bowl. Place gauze pads and any gauze packing tape you will use in the bowl;-Squeeze the saline from the gauze pads or packing…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide two residents (Resident #9 and #4), who relied on staff to assist with their activities of daily living (ADLs), in a review of 20 sampled residents, the necessary care to maintain good personal hygiene. The facility census was 82. Review of the facility policy, Perineal Care, dated March 2019, showed the following:-Purpose was to keep perineal clean and to prevent infection and odors in the perineal area;-Staff must clean all areas of the skin that are touched by soiled brief. Review of the facility policy, Indwelling Catheter Care, reviewed November 2025, showed when providing care to an uncircumcised male, retract the foreskin, cleanse the meatus as described, and return the foreskin to normal position. Review of Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia, reviewed 07/01/25, showed the following:-Penis care (uncircumcised);-Gently retract the foreskin during bathing and clean the penis well. It is very important to reposition 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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 ensure staff monitored and provided hand hygiene for one resident (Resident #6), in a review of ten sampled residents. Resident #6 had diagnosis of dementia and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident wandered and continually placed his/her hands in his/her pants and fondled his/her genitalia. Resident #6 touched multiple items on the unit including a resident's meal tray, food items, drinking glasses, and a water pitcher on a medication cart without appropriate hand hygiene. The facility census was 80. Review of the undated facility policy, Hand Hygiene, showed the following: -When to use soap and water: -When hands are visibly dirty or visibly soiled with blood or other body fluids; -Before eating and after using the restroom; -After approximately 10 uses of Alcohol-based hand gel or hands feel tacky from use hand gel; -When to use alcohol-based hand gel: -Before and after resident contact; -After body fluid exposure or…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-12 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — pattern
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure three residents (Residents #2, #1, and #3), in a review of four sampled residents, received care and/or services per physician's orders and professional standards of care. Staff failed to ensure Resident #2, who had a significant wound/skin history, had weekly skin assessments completed and/or documented as ordered, and failed to obtain a follow up urinalysis (urine test used to detect an infection) ordered on 08/01/24. The facility failed to obtain labs as ordered and failed to follow up timely on lab results to monitor Resident #1's potassium level, who had a diagnoses of hypokalemia (low blood potassium level) and an ileus (a temporary condition where your intestine can't push food and waste out of your body which can be caused by chemical, electrolyte, or mineral imbalances such as decreased blood potassium level). The facility failed to follow discharge orders for Resident #3 by failing to complete dressing changes as ordered.…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician when two residents (Residents #1 and #2), in a review of four sampled residents, had a change in condition. The facility's census was 68. 1. Review of an email received from the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/13/24 showed the facility did not have a policy for when to notify physician. 2. Review of the Resident #1's face sheet showed the following: -He/She admitted to the facility on [DATE]; -Diagnoses included an ileus. Review of the resident's Nursing Progress Note, dated 08/01/24 at 7:04 A.M., showed the resident's physician examined the resident and reviewed medications with no new orders. Review of the resident's Physician's Progress Note, dated 08/01/24, showed the following: -The resident was admitted for rehabilitation on 07/26/24; -The resident had a history of dementia and congestive heart failure (the heart cannot pump blood well enough to give the body a normal supply) with recent hospitalization; -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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was obtained to continue an indwelling urinary catheter for one resident of two residents (Resident (R) 19) reviewed for catheters. Findings include: Review of R19's undated Face Sheet from the Face Sheet section of the Resident tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R19's relevant diagnoses included urinary tract infection; chronic kidney disease, stage 3, and retention of urine. Review of the Census section of the Resident tab in the EMR revealed R19 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R19 most recently discharged from the facility to the hospital on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R19's Progress Notes section of the Resident tab in the EMR revealed on 03/01/24 at 2:24 AM, R19 returned from the emergency room with an indwelling foley catheter placed and instructions to retain catheter until treating physician decides on removal.…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Attending Physician for one of five residents (Resident (R) 41) reviewed for unnecessary medications provided a rationale for not following the Consultant Pharmacist's recommendation related to an anti-anxiety medication that was ordered as needed (PRN) without a stop date. This had the potential for the resident being administered medication unnecessarily. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled Drug Regimen Review Policy stated .5. Each resident's primary care physician must respond to consult reports within 10 business days. If this is not followed, the medical director will be consulted for further intervention.7. If PCP (primary care provider) does not wish to make change as recommended on a pharmacist consult report, they will be required to document their rationale as to why, on the report. Review of R41's medications located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Resident Documents tab revealed an order dated 02/06/24 for lorazepam 0.5 milligrams…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-04-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for four residents (Residents #6, #13, #42 and #173). The facility did not address or include interventions for the following: Resident #6 was a smoker, resident #13 utilized oxygen therapy, resident #42's pain or resident #172's pressure ulcers and presence of a wound vac. The facility census was 70. 1. During interview on 4/28/22 at 2:08 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the facility did not have a policy for updating care plans. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.17.1, Chapter 4, revised October 2019, showed the following: -The care plan is driven not only by identified resident issues and/or conditions but also by a resident's unique characteristics, strengths, and needs; -A care plan that is based on a thorough assessment, effective clinical decision making, and is compatible…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-04-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update interventions in the resident's care plan to reflect current care needs for four residents (Resident #25, #36, #43 and #67), in a review of 21 sampled residents. The facility census was 70. During interview on 4/28/22 at 2:08 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the facility did not have a policy for updating care plans. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.17.1, Chapter 4, revised October 2019, showed the following: -The care plan is driven not only by identified resident issues and/or conditions but also by a resident's unique characteristics, strengths, and needs; -A care plan that is based on a thorough assessment, effective clinical decision making, and is compatible with current standards of clinical practice can provide a strong basis for optimal approaches to quality of care and quality of life needs of individual…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-04-28 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — pattern
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services consistent with acceptable standards of practice to prevent and treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) for four residents (Resident #6, #36, #57, and #67), of 21 sampled residents, who had an indwelling urinary catheter (a sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine). The facility reported twelve residents with indwelling catheters. The facility census was 70. 1. Review of the facility policy Indwelling Catheter Care dated 11/19 showed the intent of the facility policy was to ensure that the residents receive care and services to prevent urinary tract infections in those residents with indwelling catheters, in accordance with standards of practice. Procedure: 1. Perform hand hygiene before beginning the procedure and assemble all supplies; 2. Knock before entering the room, introduce self, and explain procedure to the resident; 3. Place supplies on the bedside table or over bed table 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-04-28 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 adequately provide ordered treatments, and failed to prevent further tissue damage for one resident (Resident #6) who had one Stage II pressure ulcer, (A partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red-pink wound bed without slough. May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister) and one Stage III (Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining or tunneling) pressure ulcer which were not present upon admission. Facility staff failed to complete ordered treatments timely and did not properly reposition the resident while in the bed. The facility census was 70. Review of the facility policy Clean Dressing Change, dated November 2019 showed the intent was to ensure dressings are changed in accordance with the State and Federal guidelines. #19. Apply clean…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-04-28 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to administer medications with an error rate of less than 5% when staff failed to administer medications separately via peg tube (tube inserted through the abdominal wall into the stomach to provide medications and nutrition) for one resident (Resident #7), in a review of 21 sampled residents. There were 31 opportunities with three errors, which resulted in an error rate of 9.68 %. The facility census was 70. Review of the facility's policy, Enteral Feeding Medication Administration, dated 11/2019, showed the following: -It is the policy of the facility to provide appropriate medication administration to residents who receive their medications via an enteral feeding tube to ensure that residents attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being in accordance to State and Federal regulation; -Prior to medication administration, flush the tube with 30 milliliters (ml) of water, mix each crushed medication with five to ten ml of water and flush with ten ml of water between each…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$35,360 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $35,360 — penalty dated 2024-03-14

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
EMBREE, SHARIIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2005
CALLISON, GUYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/23/2021

CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 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.

$5.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-10.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 51%Medicare 8%Other / private 41%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$255per resident / day
operating cost
$7,753per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$230per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Missouri
$6,741/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,400/mo
Assisted living

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 265590. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-09, 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.

What to do next