Republic Nursing & Rehab
901 East Hwy 174, Republic, MO 65738 · For profit - Corporation · 127 certified beds · (417) 732-1822 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Feb 2022
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- about 28% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 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.
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 | 17.3% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.3% | 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 | 2.4% | 4.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.0% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 37.5% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.2% | 17.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.4% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 46.6% | 63.5% | 79.4% | 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.
52.3% 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 28 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 10% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 52.3%CMS range 35.9–70.2 | 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 | 10.4%CMS range 6.9–16.2 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 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 127 beds and averages 110.5 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 16 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 3.02 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.51 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 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 2.71 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.14 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.58 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards of practice and in a manner to prevent possible contamination when the facility failed to keep dented cans separated from other cans; failed to ensure all food items were properly labeled and sealed; failed to ensure transported foods were covered; failed to ensure fans, vents, and ceilings in food areas were free from dirt and debris; and when staff stacked dishes while still wet. This had the potential to affect all residents who consumed food from the facility kitchen. The facility census was 115 residents.1. Review of the 2022 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code showed the following information:-Depending on the circumstances, rusted, and pitted or dented cans may present a serious potential hazard;-Damaged or incorrectly applied packaging may allow the entry of bacteria or other contaminants into the contained food;-If the integrity of the packaging has been compromised, contaminants may find their way 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 · D2024-07-24 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in resident condition and abnormal laboratory results in a timely manner for one resident (Resident #1). The facility census was 94. Review of the facility policy titled, Condition Change, Resident (Observing, Recording, and Reporting), dated March 2015, showed staff are to observe, record, and report any condition change to the attending physician so that proper treatment can be implemented. Review of the facility policy titled, Lab Reporting Guidelines, dated March 2015, showed the following information: -Nurse will document resident name and lab ordered in the 24-hour report book and the date it is to be drawn; -Nurse will notify the physician of lab results via fax and follow up call (within twelve hours for routine labs and within one hour for statim (STAT - as soon as possible) labs); -Nurse will document on the lab report that the physician has been notified to include how they are notified, when,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control measures to prevent or reduce the risk of spreading bacteria or other infectious causing contaminants when staff failed to provide a clean barrier for supplies, failed to appropriately wash hands, and failed to appropriately utilize personal protective equipment for one resident (Resident #2) during wound care and one resident (Resident #3) during blood sugar checks and insulin administration. The facility census was 94. 1. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Wound Care and Treatment, dated March 2015, showed the following: -Medications should be for one designated resident only except for large volume liquids. These may be poured into a cup to take to the bedside; -Set-up supplies on a clean surface at bedside. Cover the surface with a clean, impervious barrier prior to setting supplies down. Supplies are never placed on the bed. -Place soiled scissors on one corner of the setup, not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-03-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to keep food safe from potential contamination when staff stacked clean dishware inside one another trapping moisture; the facility failed to keep dented cans separate from other canned goods; and failed to ensure dry food containers were properly sealed. This could potentially affect all the residents. The facility census was 82. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Dishwashing, by Nutrition and Dining Services Manual, dated May 2015, showed the following information: -Rack dishes and trays in appropriate rack; -Rack cups, bowls, and glasses upside down; -Allow items thoroughly dry before unloading racks or storing items. Review of the 1999 Food Code, issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), showed the following information: -After cleaning and sanitizing, equipment and utensils shall be air-dried or used after adequate draining before contact with food; -Items must be allowed to drain and to air-dry before being stacked or stored. Stacking wet items such as pans prevents them from drying and may…
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 before2024-03-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible when staff failed to care plan transfer method and failed to obtain therapy's assessment and recommendations of how to safely transfer one resident (Resident #1) who was non-weight bearing and when staff failed to ensure access to smoking materials were limited to residents assessed able to keep them when two residents (Resident #36 and #66) kept smoking materials in an unsecured manner. The facility census was 82. 1. Review of a facility policy entitled Transfer Activities (Nursing Guidelines Manual, March 2015) showed the following: -Purpose to transfer the resident from bed to chair, toilet or tub safely; -Obtain assistance of another individual if necessary for safe transfer; -Depending upon the amount of assistance required, the nurse may either support the resident on his/her affected side or stand in front of the resident. Support may be provided by use…
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 before2024-03-14 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 a sanitary environment for all residents and staff when the facility staff did not keep walls, baseboards, and vents clean in the kitchen area. The facility census was 82. 1. Observation on 03/11/24, beginning at 8:42 A.M., showed the following areas were dirty with grease, lint, and debris: -The walls and baseboards behind the ovens; -The baseboards underneath the metal, three-bin kitchen sink; -The space behind the ice machine, between the unit and wall; -The ceiling vents; -The ceiling air conditioning unit. During an interview on 03/14/24, at approximately 1:45 P.M., Dietary Aide O said he/she does do a lot of cleaning, but had not noticed the baseboards or up high like any of the ceiling vents or on the air conditioner. During an interview on 03/14/24, at approximately 1:55 P.M., [NAME] P said the following: -The baseboards, air conditioner, and ceiling vents, should be cleaned on a regular basis; -He/she said it has been done before, but it had been a long time; -He/she said it is difficult to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated comprehensive assessment instrument completed by facility staff) included accurate nutritional and weight loss information for one resident (Resident #28). The facility census was 82. Review of the facility provided document titled, MDS and Care Planning Guidelines, dated 10/01/15, showed the following information: -It is the policy of the facility to use the most current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) MDS Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, and any published interim RAI manual errata documents, as the authoritative guide for completion of the MDS and establishing and maintaining resident care plans. 1. Review of Resident #28's face sheet showed the following information: -admission date of 02/28/22; -Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease-stage 3 (kidneys have mild to moderate damage and are less able to filter waste and fluid out of the body), Type 2 diabetes…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive and individualized care plan, including interventions, to address the use of antianxiety medications for one resident (Resident #56) and receipt of hospice services for one resident (Resident #89). The facility had a census of 82. Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plan Comprehensive, dated March 2015, showed the following: -The interdisciplinary care plan team, with input from the resident, family, and/or legal representative. will develop and maintain a comprehensive care plan for each resident that identifies the highest level of functioning the resident may be expected to attain; -The comprehensive care plan will be based on a thorough assessment that includes, but is not limited to, the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff); -Assessment of each resident is ongoing process and the care plan will be revised as changes occur in the resident's condition; -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 · D2024-03-14 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed provide care per standards of practice when staff failed to obtain a physician's order for hospice and update the resident's care plan to reflect admission to hospice for one resident (Resident # 6). The facility census was 82. Review of the facility's policy titled, Physician's Orders, dated March 2015, showed the following: -Physician's orders must be signed by the physician and dated when such order was signed; -Current lists of orders must be maintained in the clinical record of each resident to avoid confusion and errors. Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plan Comprehensive, dated March 2015, showed the following: -The interdisciplinary care plan team, with input from the resident, family, and/or legal representative, will develop and maintain a comprehensive care plan for each resident that identifies the highest level of functioning the resident may be expected to attain; -Assessment of each resident is ongoing process and the care plan will be revised as changes occur in the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with standards of practice when the facility failed to have a physician's diagnosis for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP - machine that uses mild air pressure to keep breathing airways open while one sleeps) and failed to address the CPAP on the care plan or on the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated comprehensive assessment instrument completed by facility staff) for one resident (Resident#83). The facility had a census of 82. Review of the facility's policy titled, MDS and Care Planning Guidelines, dated 10/01/15, showed the following information: -It is the policy of the facility to use the most current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) MDS Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, and any published interim RAI manual errata documents, as the authoritative guide for completion of the MDS and establishing and maintaining resident care plans. Review of the facility's…
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 7 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 ensure that one resident's (Resident #17) with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD - disorder that develops when a person has experienced or witnessed a scary, shocking, terrifying, or dangerous event) had his/her PTSD diagnosis listed in the medical record, failed to ensure the resident's PTSD was noted on the resident's care plan to include triggers and interventions, and failed to ensure staff were knowledgeable of the resident's history of PTSD. The facility census was 82. Record review of the facility assessment, updated December 2023, showed the following information: -Individualized care plans are developed for each resident to ensure each resident within the facility has their physical, mental, psychosocial, spiritual needs met. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy related to PTSD. Review of the facility's policy titled, MDS and Care Planning Guidelines, dated 10/01/15, showed the following information: -It is the policy of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-02-25 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document checking the Nurse Aide (NA) Registry prior to the start date of one staff (Housekeeper A) out of five sampled staff to ensure they did not have a Federal Indicator (a marker given to a potential employee who has committed abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of property against residents) prohibiting them to work in a certified facility. The facility census was 91. Record review of the facility's protocol titled, Abuse Prohibition, dated November 2016, showed the following: -It is the purpose of this facility to prohibit mistreatment, neglect, abuse, misappropriation of resident's property, and exploitation of any resident; -To assure that everything possible is being done to prevent abuse, the facility has implemented screening of potential employees. Record review of the facility's protocol titled, Employee Screening Guidelines, dated December 2016, showed the following: -It is the purpose of this facility to thoroughly screen potential employees for a history of abuse, neglect, mistreatment of residents, 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-02-25 · 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 record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to complete routine fall risk assessments, to care plan new fall interventions after each fall, failed to lock wheels the wheelchair, and failed to ensure proper fit of the wheelchair to reduce the risk of falls for one resident (Resident #33). The facility also failed to ensure doors that led to an outside enclosed courtyard, and were unlocked at all time, allowed for residents, or others in the courtyard, to reenter the facility without assistance The facility census was 91. 1. Observations on 2/22/22, at 10:50 A.M. and 2:30 P.M., showed the following: -A door off the main dining room that led to a small interior courtyard; -The courtyard was completely surrounded by walls of the facility, and the only way in or out of the courtyard was the single door; -The door was unsecured (unlocked in any way) from the interior, dining-room side, which allowed anyone (including residents) free access to the courtyard; -When the door closed, it…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-02-25 · 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 2. Record review of Resident #60's face sheet showed the following: -admitted to the facility on [DATE]; -Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (oxygen levels cannot be kept normal and causes increased respiratory rate), chronic kidney disease (gradual loss of kidney function), amputation of right lower leg and absence of right leg above the knee, muscle weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - lung disease that blocks air flow and makes it difficult to breathe), and hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following -Moderately impaired cognition; -Extensive assistance of two staff required for bed mobility, toilet use, and personal hygiene; -Extensive assistance of two staff for transfers. Record review of the resident's side rail assessment and consent, dated 8/27/21, showed the following: -Non-ambulatory; -Displayed poor bed mobility or difficulty moving to sitting position on the side of the bed; -Uses side rails 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 · E2022-02-25 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — patternProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
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 routinely assess the effectiveness of interventions implemented for residents with dementia/behaviors and failed to complete person centered care plans related to residents with dementia/behaviors for for three residents (Resident #63, Resident #77 and Resident #82) in the special care unit (SCU-a secured unit for residents with a diagnosis of dementia) to ensure their highest practicable well-being. The SCU census was 18 and the facility census was 91. Record review of the facility's Special Care Unit Manual, dated 04/06, showed the following: -The overall objective of this facility's Special Care Unit is to provide a therapeutic, homelike environment that will maximize the resident's independent functioning for as long as possible and help ease the emotion/physical burden for families. The purpose is to provide each resident with individualized care that enhances their quality of life by meeting physical and psychosocial needs. -Mission…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-02-25 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 the floor under the ice machine located inside of the kitchen were kept clean and free from debris. The facility census was 91. Record review of the facility policy named Cleaning Schedules, dated April 2011, showed the following: -It is the responsibility of the Dining Services Manager (DSM) to enforce the cleaning schedules and to monitor the completion of assigned cleaning tasks; -Daily, weekly, and monthly cleaning schedules prepared by the DSM with all cleaning tasks listed posted in the dietary department; -It will specify the days the cleaning schedule will be done and specify who is responsible to do the cleaning by shift and positions; -Post the schedule prior to the beginning of each week and the employee will initial in the column under the day the task is completed; -The purpose to develop detailed cleaning schedules is to ensure sanitation is at acceptable standards. Record review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2013 Food Code showed the following: -Non food-contact surfaces…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-02-25 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect residents from misappropriation of property when staff discovered missing doses of controlled medications that were in the possession of the facility for two residents (Resident #60 and #79). The facility census was 91. Record review of the facility's Abuse Prohibition Protocol Manual, dated November 2016, showed misappropriation of resident property means the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money with the resident's consent. Record review of the facility's policy Storage of Medications from the Nursing Guidelines Manual, March 2015, showed the following: -All mobile medication carts must be under visual control of the staff at all times, when not stored safely and securely. Carts must be either in a locked room or otherwise made immobile; -All controlled substances must be stored under double lock and key; -An unattended medication cart must remain locked at all…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN — 56 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.4 | +2.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 2.4 | +2.6 vs chain |
The other 55 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 55; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LINCOLN, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 07/01/2014 |
| LINCOLN, JUDY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 07/01/2014 |
| LOVE, DARIUS | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/11/2013 |
| LTC MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2014 |
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 28% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265326. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-18, 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.