Richland Care Center INC
400 Tri-County Lane, Richland, MO 65556 · Non profit - Corporation · 86 certified beds · (573) 765-3243 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568, F0569)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.7% | 18.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.4% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.9% | 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 | 3.5% | 4.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.4% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.5% | 25.6% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 4.5% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.8% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 28.2% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.9% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.9% | 26.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 20.9% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.81 | 2.33 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
57.2% 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 36 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 26 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 14% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 57.2%CMS range 45.0–71.0 | 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 | 9.5%CMS range 6.2–15.7 | 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 | 61.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 50.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 61.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.0% | 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 | 6.1% | 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 | 3.0% | 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 | 6.6%CMS range 3.0–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 86 beds and averages 45.6 residents a day — about 53% occupied, or roughly 40 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.95 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.28 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.00 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 2.67 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.06 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.30 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-09-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 interview and record review, the facility staff failed to develop and implement policies and procedures for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of the facility water systems to inhibit the growth of waterborne pathogens and reduce the risk of an outbreak of Legionnaire's Disease (LD). The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Survey and Certification (S&C) letter 17-30, dated 06/02/17 and revised on 06/09/17; showed: -The bacterium Legionella can cause a serious type of pneumonia called LD in persons at risk. Those at risk include persons who are at least [AGE] years old, smokers, or those with underlying medical conditions such as chronic lung disease or immunosuppression. Outbreaks have been linked to poorly maintained water systems in buildings with large or complex water systems including hospitals and long-term care facilities. Transmission can occur via aerosols from devices such as shower heads, cooking towers, hot tubs, and decorative…
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 · E2024-09-20 · 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
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to prevent the commingling of four current residents (Resident #4, #22, #12, and #14) out of 15 sampled residents personal funds with the operating funds of the facility. The facility census was 35. 1. The facility did not provide a policy for accounting records. 2. Review of the facility maintained Account Receivable (AR) Aging report, dated 09/17/24, showed current residents with personal funds held in the facility operating account as follows: -Resident #4 with a credit balance of $446.00 with a start date of 01/2024; -Resident #22 with a credit balance of $988.00 with a start date of 03/2024; -Resident #12 with a credit balance of $2971.92 with a start date of 05/2024; -Resident #14 with a credit balance of $18.00 with a start date of 06/2024. During an interview on 09/19/24 at 10:00 A.M., the administrator said he/she has been at the facility since 08/02/24 and is now responsible to review the AR reports monthly. The administrator said prior to him/her starting last month the former Business Office Manager (BOM) had…
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 · E2024-09-20 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure prepared food items were served at a safe and appetizing temperature when the facility staff failed to maintain the internal temperatures of hot food items at 120 degrees Fahrenheit (º F) or higher upon service to residents who ate in their rooms. The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the facility's Cooking Potentially Hazardous Foods Standard of Practice policy, revised on 06/13/24, showed the policy directed staff to follow state and local health department requirements and to hold prepared hot foods at 135º F. Observation on 09/17/24 from 12:05 P.M. to 12:19 P.M., showed [NAME] E prepared plates of garlic herb pork loin, creamed potatoes and peas and seasoned red cabbage, for service to the residents who ate in their rooms, from the food items held in hot holding on the steamtable. Observation showed the cook placed the food on plates warmed in the steamtable, covered the plates with an insulated dome plate cover 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 · D2024-09-20 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop 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, facility staff failed to complete pre-employment screenings of the Criminal Background Check (CBC), Employee Disqualification List (EDL) verification, and Family Care Safety Registry (FCSR), for three employees (Dietary Manager (DM), CNA C, and CNA B) out of 10 employees sampled. The facility census was 35. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse Prohibition, dated 12/26/23, showed all persons hired will be checked with appropriate licensing agencies and CBC as required by Missouri law. 2. Review of the DM's personnel file showed: -Date of hire 06/07/23; -Did not contain FCSR or CBC. Review of the DM's timecard showed his/her first day worked as 06/07/23. 3. Review of CNA C's personnel file showed: -Date of hire 07/24/23; -Did not contain FCSR or CBC. Review of CNA C's timecard showed his/her first day worked as 07/24/23. 4. Review of CNA B's personnel file showed: -Date of hire 10/03/23; -Did not contain a FCSR or CBC. Review of CNA B's timecard showed his/her first day worked as 10/03/23. 5. During an interview on 09/19/24 at 11:00…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-07 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, facility staff failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse towards one resident (Resident #1) to the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) within the two hour required time frame. The facility census was 33. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, undated, showed staff were directed to report any alleged abuse or neglect will be investigated by the administrator or their designee. Proper authorities will be notifie and the facility will report any incidents and violations to the appropriate agencies and authorities within appropraite time frames. 2. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 11/29/23, showed staff assesed the resident as: -Cognitively intact; -Active diagnoses: anxiety (emotion characterized by feelings of tension, worried thoughts, and physical changes like increased blood pressure), depression (depression is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily activities),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, facility staff failed to investigate an allegation of rape for one resident (Resident #1). The facility census was 33. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, undated, showed staff were directed any report of alleged abuse or neglect will be investigated by the administrator or their designee. 2. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 11/29/23, showed staff assesed the resident as: -Cognitively intact; -Active diagnoses: anxiety (emotion characterized by feelings of tension, worried thoughts, and physical changes like increased blood pressure), depression (depression is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily activities), debility (physical weakness, especially as a result of illness), peripheral vascualar disease (circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs); -Disorganized thinking (rambling and irrelevant conversation that comes and goes 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 · F2023-05-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to store food in a manner to prevent potential contamination and out-dated use. Facility staff failed to wear hair restraints to protect food and food-contact surfaces from potential contamination. Facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene as often as necessary to prevent cross-contamination. Facility staff also failed to ensure two of three kitchen waste containers were covered when not in actual use. The facility census was 29. 1. Review of the facility's Preventing Cross-Contamination During Storage and Preparation Standard of Practice policy, dated 07/06/22, showed the policy directed staff to train food-service employees on using the procedures in the policy and to follow state and local health department requirements. Review also showed the policy directed that a designated food-service employee would continually monitor food storage and preparation to ensure that food is not cross-contaminated. 2. Observation on 05/23/23 at 10:08 A.M., showed the chest freezer contained opened and undated plastic…
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 before2023-05-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to use appropriate infection control procedures to prevent the spread of bacteria or other infectious causing contaminants when staff failed to perform appropriate perineal care when they wiped multiple times with the same area of the wipe for two residents (Residents #3 and #13), and staff failed to maintain transmission based precautions for one resident (Resident #26) in order to prevent the transmission of clostridium difficile [C-diff- a germ (bacterium) that causes diarrhea and colitis (an inflammation of the colon)] infection and failed to post guidance (e.g., posted signs at entrances) on COVID- 19 recommendation actions for visitors. The facility census was 29. 1. Review of the Facility's Perineal Care of Female and Male Resident's, undated, showed staff are instructed to use a clean area of wash cloth for each wipe. 2. Review of Resident #3's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2024-09-20 · tag F0569 — widespreadNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, facility staff failed to provide refunds of personal funds to from the facility operating account for nine residents (#294, #290, #296, #288, #295, #287, #286, #291, and #289) out of 15 sampled residents who discharged from the facility within the required 30 days. The facility census was 35. 1. The facility did not provide a policy for accounting records. Review of the facility's admission Agreement, undated, showed the facility agreed to refund the unused balance of payment when the resident discharges from the facility. 2. Review of the facility maintained Account Receivable (AR) Aging report, dated 09/17/24, showed discharged residents with personal funds held in the facility operating account as follows : -Resident #294 discharged from the facility on 12/21/23 with a credit balance of $2020.00; -Resident #290 discharged from the facility on 01/20/24 with a credit balance of $226.00; -Resident #296 discharged from the facility on 01/28/24 with a credit balance of $1323.00; -Resident #288 discharged from the facility on 02/24/24 with a credit…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-05-24 · tag F0575 — widespreadPost a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, facility staff failed to post the required telephone number for the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) Adult Abuse and Neglect Hotline (used to report allegations of abuse and neglect) in a form and manner accessible to residents and visitors. The census was 29. 1. Review of the facility's Abuse Prohibition Policy, undated, showed information on how and to whom to report can be made will be posted at all times in various places in the facility. Observation on 5/22/23 at 2:02 P.M., showed the facility did not post the name, address, and toll free telephone number for the Adult Abuse and Neglect Hotline in an accessible location for residents, visitors or staff. Observation on 5/23/23 at 3:15 P.M., showed the facility did not post the name, address, and toll free telephone number for the Adult Abuse and Neglect Hotline in an accessible location for residents, visitors or staff. Observation on 5/24/23 at 3:20 P.M., showed the facility did not have the name, address, and toll free telephone number for the Adult Abuse and Neglect Hotline…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALEXANDER, JEANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2009 |
| BELSHE, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2021 |
| FREDERICK, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| HOWLETT, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/01/2021 |
| JACOBSON, DOUGLAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2016 |
| MITSCHELE, SHIRLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2011 |
| OURSBOURN, WILMA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2021 |
| PREWETT, JOHNNY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2004 |
| STRUCKHOFF, KENNETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/01/1988 |
| WARREN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/1978 |
| WINFREY, GLENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2019 |
| RICHLAND CARE CENTER, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/1966 |
| AVILA, JULIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/25/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 13 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.
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.
About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265755. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-05, 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.