Oakridge Of Plattsburg
205 E Clay Ave, Plattsburg, MO 64477 · Non profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (816) 539-2128 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568, F0570)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $12,735 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-14)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 3 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 | 10.5% | 18.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 5.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.2% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.1% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.2% | 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 | 3.9% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.2% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.3% | 25.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.6% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.1% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.3% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 38.5% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.2% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.70 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.08 | 2.33 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
49.6% 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 26 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 49.6%CMS range 33.3–63.3 | 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 | 12.9%CMS range 8.8–17.4 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 3.6–12.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.04 | 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 60 beds and averages 55.2 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.25 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 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 2.89 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.39 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-11-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and a safe dining environment for one resident (Resident #1) who sustained burns to the fingers on the right hand, when left un-attended during meal service and was witnessed by Resident #2. This affected one out of four residents sampled. The facility census was 52.On 10/14/25, the Administrator was notified of the past noncompliance which occurred on 10/7/25. On 10/7/25, facility administration was notified of the incident, an investigation immediately began, and corrective action were implemented to include a new policy for meal service for residents who require assistance, and staff training regarding meal service that included staff education that supervision and assistance must be provided to residents when served. The non-compliance was corrected 10/7/25.Review of the facility's Accident and Incident Policy, revised 2017 showed all accident or incident involving residents on the premises will be investigated and reported to the administrator. The nurse supervisor or charge…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-06 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a clean and home like environment for three sampled residents (Resident #4, #14 and #27), when the facility did not ensure window curtains were in good repair and air conditioning units were clean in resident rooms and failed to ensure bathrooms in resident rooms were in good repair. This affected three of 14 sampled residents (Resident #4, #14 and #27). The facility census was 55. The facility did not provide the requested policy on environment.1. Observation of the Resident #4's room on 03/04/2026 at 02:31 P.M., showed:-The vents of air conditioner were covered in dust and dirt;-The air conditioner was on and blowing cold are and dust into the room;-The bathroom door is stuck shut and was hard to open;-The bathroom door had a strip of missing paint on the top of the door;-The window curtains were torn and frayed.Observation of the resident's room on 03/05/2026 at 09:07 A.M., showed:-The vents of air conditioner were covered in dust and dirt;-The air conditioner was on and blowing cold are and dust into 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 before2026-03-06 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate Activities of Daily Living (ADL) cares for dependent residents when the facility allowed a resident to remain in his/her wheelchair for over four hours without repositioning the resident, toileting the resident, providing oral care after meals or offering the resident a drink; affecting one resident (Resident #29). And when the facility failed to ensure proper perineal care was provided to one resident when a staff member used a disposable cleansing wipe multiple times to clean bowel movement off of a resident (Resident #25). The facility census was 54.Review of the facility's ADL Policy dated 01/31/2024, showed that the facility is to assist the resident in achieving maximum function. 1.Review of Resident #29's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff) dated 02/20/2026, showed:-Resident dependent on staff for eating, toileting, and all ADL's;-Always incontinent of bowel and bladder;-Diagnoses included: kidney disease, seizures and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-06 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide 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 ensure residents with an indwelling catheter received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible when the facility failed to ensure proper catheter care was provided for two (Resident #25 and Resident #8) of the 14 sampled residents. The facility census was 55. Review of the facilities Catheter, Emptying Urinary Drainage Bag policy, dated 1/31/24, showed:- Place a paper towel beneath the drainage bag;- Position the measuring container under the drainage bag;- Remove the drainage tube from it's holder;- Open the drainage and let urine flow into the measuring container;- After the drainage bag has emptied, close the drain;- Wipe the drain with an alcohol sponge or swab;- Replace the drain back into it's holder. Review of the facilities Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy, dated 3/5/26, showed:- Enhanced barrier precautions will be implemented for resident's who have wounds or indwelling…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-06 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication error rate was less than five percent for two sampled residents (Resident #29 and Resident #30) out of 26 opportunities, when staff administered a rectal suppository without lubricant, withheld a prescribed medication, and additionally when staff documented a medication was administered when it was withheld; causing a 12% medication error rate. The facility census was 54.Review of the facility's Medication Administration Policy dated April 2019, showed:-Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner;-Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders;-If a dosage is believed to be inappropriate or excessive, the person administering the medication will contact the prescriber or facility's medical director to discuss concerns. Review of the National Library of Medicine website, dated 2021, showed the administration of a rectal suppository should be completed by use of a gloved index finger, placing the lubricated suppository into the rectum for ease of placement.…
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 · E2026-03-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with professional standards, including expiration dates, for 10 sampled residents (Residents #1, #3, #6, #8, #29, #33, #48, #52, #53, and #56) when the facility had six opened multi-use medications that were not labeled with the open date, six opened multi-use medications with open date over 28 days prior to observation date and one large, opened, undated syringe of topical medication without a medication or resident label. The facility census was 54. Review of the facility's Medication Storage policy dated 02/01/2024, showed:-No discontinued, outdated or deteriorated drugs may be retained for use;-All outdated or discontinued drugs must be returned to the issuing Pharmacy to be destroyed in accordance with established guidelines;-Medications must be stored in the container in which they were received;-No instruction on dating medications or biologicals when opening. Observation of medication cart for 300/400 hall on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, when the facility failed to ensure staff wore enhanced barrier precautions (EBP surgical gown and gloves) while providing direct care to residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices for two residents, (Resident #9 and Resident #25) and when the staff failed to use an alcohol wipe to clean a insulin bottle and allow an the injection site to dry for (Resident #3), and additionally when the facility failed to ensure all staff members had tuberculin skin testing (TB), a test performed to determine if a person has been exposed to tuberculosis, performed before beginning employment this had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility census was 55. Review of the facilities Enhanced Barrier Precautions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-06 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a system to ensure the resident trust fund account was managed in accordance with proper accounting principles by not maintaining an accurate accounting of all monies held in the resident trust fund account and by not reconciling each month. The facility managed funds for 5 residents. The facility census was 54.Review of facility policy, Resident Trust Fund Account Management, revised 3/5/26, showed: - The facility will maintain accurate accounting, protect resident funds from misappropriation, and ensure residents maintain control over their personal finances.- Resident funds will be maintained separate from facility operating funds. The total balance of resident ledgers must equal the resident trust account bank balance. Record review of the facility maintained attempted reconciliation forms, for the period 2/1/25 - 1/31/26, showed the attempted reconciliations did not reconcile to the residents' current balance at the time of reconciliation. The amount of $8,559.84 was carried forward each month.During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interviews the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment for all residents when they did not ensure cobwebs were cleaned from the dining room as well as the common area near the facility entrance, and failed to match the paint when repairing drywall in the dining room, or to ensure ceiling trim in the dining room was secure around attic access in the dining room. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain resident safety when they did not ensure a handrail was secure, and failed to provide a homelike environment when they did not fix or replace dining room chairs that are had tearing in the fabric. The facility census was 55. The facility did not provide a policy for regarding maintaining the facility. 1. Observation of the diningroom on 11/18/24 at 10:59 showed: -Dining room chairs vinyl was peeling off and fabric was torn. -Cobwebs near ceiling next to large upper window in dining room. -Wood trim strip around attic access panel in dining room was pulling…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure dependent residents who were unable to carry out their own activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene when staff did not provide complete perineal care, complete morning hygiene cares, offer fluids, or toilet dependent residents. These failures affected three of the 14 sampled residents (Residents #4, #34and #44). The facility census was 55. Review of the facility's policy for peri care - female, revised 2/1/24, showed, in part: - Purpose: To provide comfort for the resident and to prevent infection. - (7.) Expose peri area, separate inner labia and gently wash from front to back. - (8.) With new wipe, gently open all inner skin folds and wash inner area from front to back. - (9.) With new wet wipe, wash the outer skin fold from front to back. - (10.) With new wet wipe, wash inner legs and outer peri area. - (16.) Offer resident fluids. 1. Review of Resident #4's care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-21 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' safety and independence by pushing residents in their wheelchairs who are able to propel themselves for four of the fourteen sampled residents (residents #17, #10, #39, and #19). The facility census was 55. Review of the Accidents and Incidents policy did not show any details regarding footrest safety. 1. Review of Resident #17's Quarterly MDS (minimum data set), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated, 9/19/24, showed: -Resident has severely impaired cognition. -Resident is able to wheel themselves in a wheelchair for 150 feet without assistance from helper. -Diagnoses included traumatic brain dysfunction, high blood pressure, anxiety, and depression. Observation on 11/18/24 at 11:29 A.M. showed: -Out of convenience, to move wheelchair traffic out of the hall more quickly. CNA A pushed resident #17 in her/his wheelchair out of dining room without footrests, The resident was instructed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 10 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-21 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure they assessed residents for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation, failed to review the risk and benefits with the resident or the resident's representative (Resident #5, #45) , failed to obtain informed consent prior to installation (Resident #5 and #45), failed to ensure the bed's dimensions were appropriate for the resident's size and weight (Resident #5 and #45), failed to obtain a physician's order prior to installation of side rails (Resident #5), and failed to complete quarterly safety assessments for residents (Resident #5, #45), and failed to care plan side rails (Resident #5). This included four of 14 residents sampled (Residents #5, #45, #17, and #42). The facility census was 55. Review of facility policy, bed assist bar usage, revised 4/24/24, showed: -Policy to prevent entrapment and other safety hazards associated with bed assist bar use. -Facility leadership will be responsible for completing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-21 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff administered medications with a medication rate of less than five percent (%). Staff made 6 medication errors out of 31 opportunities for error, which resulted in an error rate of 19.35%. This affected 4 of the 14 sampled residents, (Residents #5, #29, #49, and #50). The facility census was 55. Review of the facility's policy for preparation and administration of oral medications, revised 2/1/24 showed, in part: To ensure the resident receives prescribed medications as ordered by Doctor utilizing the most current nursing practice. Review and verify medication administration records/medication cards with Doctor's order according to facility policy. Check medication record/card and remove the container of medication from the bin. LIQUIDS - Shake liquid (unless medication is not to be shaken) holding label to palm and pour into calibrated cup at eye level. Check the medication record/card and label again. Physician Order to be followed completely. This includes completing medication 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to prepare and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when staff failed to utilize proper thawing techniques, failed to ensure garbage cans were kept covered when not in use, failed to properly sanitize all food preparation surfaces in kitchen, failed to store dishes in an inverted position, failed to implement proper hand washing techniques, and failed to ensure proper storage and labeling of foods. The facility census was 55. 1. Review of facility policy, waste disposal, dated April 2011, showed: -All waste must be placed in lined garbage and trash cans and kept covered when not in use. Observation on 11/18/24 9:07 A.M., showed there was no lids on two large trash cans, one in dishwashing area and one towards back of kitchen. Observation on 11/20/24 at 9:21 A.M. showed no lids were on the trash cans in the kitchen. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 2:49 P.M., [NAME] A said: -Trash cans in the kitchen should have lids on them at all times. During an interview on 11/20/24…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow acceptable infection control practices to reduce the development and spread of infections for three of the 14 sampled residents (Resident #18, #24, and #53), and failed to ensure the urinary catheter drainage bag for Resident #53 did not touch contaminated surfaces. The facility additionally failed to place residents with wounds (Resident #18 and Resident #24) and with urinary catheters (Resident #18 and #53) on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). The facility census was 55. Review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy, dated August 2022, showed: - EPBs are utilized to prevent the spread multi drug resistant organisms (MDRO) to residents; - EPBs employ targeted gown and glove use during high resident care activities when contact precautions do not otherwise apply; - Gloves and gowns are applied prior to performing the high contact resident care activity; - Examples of high contact resident care activities that…
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 before2023-04-07 · tag F0568 — patternProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to keep residents' money separated from the facility's operating account. This effected eight additionally sampled residents (Resident #37, #156, #157, #158, #159, #160, #161, and #162). The facility census was 110. Review of the facility policy titled Guidelines for Maintaining the Resident Trust Fund Account, dated [DATE], showed the following: - This facility will establish and maintain a system that assures full, complete and separate accountings of each resident's personal funds entrusted to the facility on the resident's behalf. - A separate statement will be maintained for each resident that will show every disbursement and every deposit made on the resident's behalf; - The facility will deposit all funds of the resident in an interest-bearing account that is separate from any of the facility operating accounts and all interest will be credited monthly to the resident fund account with a separate accounting for each resident's share; - Written…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-07 · tag F0570 — patternAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a surety bond sufficient to cover any loss or theft to residents' money held in the facility's Resident Trust Fund (RTF) account which had the potential to affect all eight residents who had money held in their RTF account. The facility census was 53. The facility did not have a policy for surety bonds. 1. Review of the facility's RTF documents showed there were currently eight residents with open RTF accounts in the facility. Review of the facility's approved surety bond, approved on 6/3/1996, showed an approved amount of $10,000.00. Review of the RTF worksheet on 1/12/23, showed: - The average monthly balance for the facility's interest bearing account of $11,923.42; - The approved bond amount for this average monthly balance (Grand Total rounded to the nearest thousand x 1.5 = required bond amount) should be at least $18,000. During an interview on 4/5/23 at 1:48 P.M., the Business Office Manager said she did not realize the bond amount was not sufficient. She would talk to the Administrator about increasing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided a written notice of transfer or discharge to residents or their responsible parties and the reasons for the transfer, in writing and in a language they understood. The notice should include the effective date of discharge or transfer; the location to which the resident is transferred or discharged ; a statement of the resident's appeal rights, including the name address (mailing and electronic mail), telephone number of the entity which receives requests and information on how to obtain the appeal form and assistance in completing and submitting it; the name, address (mailing and electronic mail) and telephone number of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; and for residents with a mental disorder or related disabilities, the mailing, electronic mail (email) address and telephone number of the agency for protection and advocacy for individuals with mental disorders established under the Protection and Advocacy for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-04-07 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure dependent residents who were unable to carry out their own activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene when staff did not provide complete perineal care, which affected three of 14 sampled residents (Residents #28, #29, and #36). The facility census was 53. Review of the perineal care of the female resident policy, dated 2/7/23, showed: - The purpose of perineal care was to provide comfort for the resident and prevent an infection. - The staff was supposed to separate the inner perineal folds and wipe from front to back with a clean wipe. - Wipe from front to back the outer skin folds with a clean wipe. - With a new wet wipe clean the inner thighs. 1. Review of Resident #28's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by the facility staff, dated 2/22/23, showed: - Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0, indicating 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 · E2023-04-07 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — patternProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents with limited range of motion (ROM) received appropriate treatment and services to increase ROM or to prevent further decrease in ROM. This affected four (Resident #2, #7, #8, and #19) of 14 sampled residents. The facility census was 53. Review of the restorative nursing policy, dated 2/7/23, showed: - The purpose policy was to identify residents that would benefit from restorative nursing services and to maintain the current level of independence. - The therapist will meet with the restorative aide once the resident's skilled therapy has been completed. - The charge nurse will be responsible to obtain an order for restorative services. - The restorative aide will be responsible for documentation of the restorative services provided. 1. Review of Resident #2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by the facility staff, dated 1/11/23, showed: - He/she had a Brief Interview…
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 · D2023-04-07 · 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, the facility failed to ensure staff treated residents in a manner that maintained their dignity when staff stood to assist residents to eat which affected three of 14 sampled residents (Resident #42, #44, and #52). The facility census was 53. Review of the facility's undated policy for assistive dining for the dependent resident showed, in part: - To assist any resident that cannot feed themselves and maintain adequate nutrition as able; - Sit down while feeding the resident. 1. Review of Resident #42's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff, dated 1/25/23, showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Supervision with set up and eating; - Diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF, accumulation of fluid in the lungs and other areas of the body), high blood pressure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, (COPD, obstruction of air flow that interferes with normal breathing). Review of the resident's care…
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
$12,735 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,735 — penalty dated 2025-10-14
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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWYMELER, ROBERT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/02/2017 |
| CRADIC, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/27/2021 |
| EVANS, CRAIG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2015 |
| KENSLOW, SHELDON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/26/2022 |
| O'CONOR, DENNIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/26/2022 |
| WILLIAMS, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/28/2020 |
| YOUNG, KRISTINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/18/2023 |
| DECKER, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/27/2021 |
| HEITMAN, JEROME | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/26/2022 |
| WALKER, JOSH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/27/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265742. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-06, 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.