Lutheran Senior Services At Breeze Park
600 Breeze Park Drive, Saint Charles, MO 63304 · Non profit - Church related · 50 certified beds · (636) 939-5223 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $41,347 in federal fines (most recent 2024-12-05)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 fell from 5 to 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 | 22.5% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.4% | 5.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.5% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.1% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.6% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.4% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.0% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.8% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.2% | 23.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.3% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.3% | 26.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.1% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.12 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.75 | 2.33 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
58.8% 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 50 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.4% 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 58.8%CMS range 44.1–70.4 | 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 | 10.3%CMS range 6.0–16.2 | 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 | 65.4% | 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 | 73.1% | 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 | 57.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.1% | 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 | 6.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 3.1–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.92 | 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 50 beds and averages 46.0 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 4 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 4.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.57 is at or above 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 4.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.92 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-12-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow acceptable standards of practice and their Emergency First Aid policy when staff failed to call Emergency Medical Services (EMS) when one resident (Resident #1), in a review of eight sampled residents, began choking on food during a meal and required emergency treatment. The resident expired. The facility census was 48. The administrator was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 12/2/24 at 1:28 P.M., which began on 11/26/24. The IJ was removed on 12/4/24 as confirmed by surveyor onsite verification. Review of the facility policy, titled Emergency First Aid, revised 10/23/24, showed it directs staff to contact EMS in the event emergency first aid intervention is required, including choking. Review of the American Red Cross training resources for choking showed the following: - Choking occurs when the airway becomes either partially or completely blocked by a foreign object, such as a piece of food or a small toy; by swelling in the mouth or throat; or by fluids, such as vomit or blood. A person who is choking…
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 · F2026-04-02 · 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 ensure ice and beverage dispensing units in three of three dining rooms/satellite kitchens were free of an accumulation of debris. The facility census was 47. 1. Observation on 3/30/26 at 11:20 A.M. and on 3/31/26 at 10:14 A.M., inside the Lindenwood dining room, showed the following:-A combination ice/water dispensing unit had two separate dispensing spouts. The ice dispensing spout had a buildup of white crusty debris on the exterior of the spout and dark-colored debris inside the spout. The water dispensing spout had a buildup of white crusty debris inside the spout. The exterior of the ice/water dispensing unit had vents on either side with a buildup of fuzzy debris;-A beverage dispensing unit had four dispensing nozzles for orange juice, grape cocktail, lemonade and cranberry cocktail. The nozzles and areas around the nozzles had a buildup of multi-colored liquid and debris. The metal backsplash behind the nozzles had numerous splatters and splashes of purple liquid. Observation on 3/30/26 at 11:30 A.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-04-02 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a system to monitor the facility's water supply, including assessment of cold and hot water temperatures, to ensure specific control parameters to prevent growth of Legionella (a bacterium that can cause a serious type of pneumonia called Legionnaires' Disease) in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)) standards. The facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene when providing incontinence care to two residents (Residents #48 and #6), in a review of 12 sampled residents, and for one additional resident (Resident #35). The facility census was 47.1. Review of the facility policy, Water Management Plan, revised May 2025, showed the following:-The policy is specifically to reduce Legionella risk in healthcare facility water systems to prevent cases and outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease (LD);-Outbreaks have…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-02 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — patternProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services to assist two residents (Resident #3 and #4), in a review of 12 sampled residents, and one additional resident (Resident #45), to attain or maintain his/her highest level of functioning. The facility census was 47.Review of the facility policy, Restorative Nursing, dated 04/26/19, showed the following:-Residents will receive restorative nursing care as needed to help promote optimal safety and independence;-Restorative nursing care consists of nursing interventions that may or may not be accompanied by formalized rehabilitative services (e.g., physical, occupational or speech therapies);-Residents may be started on a restorative nursing program upon admission, during the course of stay or when discharged from rehabilitative care;-Restorative goals and objectives are individualized and resident-centered, and are outlined in the resident's plan of care;-The resident or representative will be included in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-02 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain documentation to show staff accurately assessed the risk of entrapment from bed rails and failed to maintain documentation staff obtained informed consent from the residents' representatives prior to bed rail use for four residents (Residents #48, #3, #29, an #12) with bed rails, in a review of 12 sampled resident. The facility census was 47.Review of the facility policy, Proper Use of Bed Assistive Devises, dated 05/19/26, showed the following:-The purposes of these guidelines are to ensure the safe use of bed assistive devices as resident mobility aids and to prohibit the use of bed assistive devices as restraints unless necessary to treat a resident's medical symptoms;-Bed assistive devices include side rails, assist rails, and other bed positioning devices;-An assessment will be made to determine the resident's symptoms or reason for using the bed assistive device upon initiation, quarterly, and as needed;-The use of bed…
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 · D2026-04-02 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 evaluate Broda chairs (a padded reclining chair on wheels) as a physical restraint and failed to ensure the chairs were the least restrictive device while maintaining safety for two residents (Resident #9 and #45), in a review of 12 sampled residents. Staff identified the Broda chairs were utilized to keep the residents in their chair and prevented the residents from standing or propelling without staff assistance. The facility census was 47. Review of the facility's policy, Restraints, last reviewed 03/03/25, showed the following:-The resident has the right to be free from any physical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident's medication symptoms;-Restraints should only be used when there is no other option for treating a medical symptom;-Restraints will not be used to control resident behavior or as a punishment;-Restraints will only be used when it has been determined that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-07 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised for four residents (R)6, R27, R28, and R44 that experienced changes in their conditions and/or care from a total sample of 13 residents. R6 experienced syncopal episodes (a sudden drop in heart rate and blood pressure leading to fainting) on [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. R27's care plan was not revised to reflect a left ankle ulcer and that the left ankle ulcer and right buttock ulcers were healed. R28's care plan was not revised to reflect the resident's suprapubic catheter was draining bloody urine and the interventions to flush the catheter as needed. R44's care plan documented the resident was a full code when the resident's Advance Directive indicated the resident was a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Care Plans - Comprehensive Person Centered with a review date of [DATE], indicated The comprehensive, person-centered care plan…
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 before2024-03-07 · 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, record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff's adherence to use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for three of four residents (Resident (R) 6, R27, and R28) on droplet precautions and enhanced precaution isolations from a total sample of 13 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled COVID 19 Infection Control Measures reviewed 01/30/24 revealed .Post visual alerts (e.g. signs, posters) at the entrance and in strategic places (e.g. waiting areas, elevators, cafeterias). These alerts should provide instructions about current IPC [Infection Prevention and Control] recommendations. Review of droplet precautions signage posted on residents' room doors revealed staff were to wear N95 face masks, isolation gowns, gloves, and face shield, and perform hand hygiene after resident care. During an observation on 03/05/24 at 12:09 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 was observed donning N95 face mask, gown, and gloves.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-07 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — patternRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and policy and bed specifications review, the facility failed to ensure that regular inspections of bed rails, mattresses, and bed frames were conducted for 41 of 47 occupied beds with enabler bars attached. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Proper Use of Bed Assistive Devices revised on 01/30/24, revealed Plant operations will inspect all beds for safety annually, when new device is installed, and as needed when notified by nursing. Review of the undated bed specifications titled SS Retractabed User Manual, Revision 03 revealed no reference to the placement or inclusion of an enabler as part of the bed system. During an observation on 03/07/24 at 9:15 AM, an enabler bar was observed on Resident(R)38's bed located in the bedroom. During an interview on 03/07/24 at 10:15 AM, the Director of Nursing verified the use of the enabler on R38's bed. During an interview 03/07/24 at 10:30 AM, the Maintenance Director verified the facility has no record of bed side rails, mattress, and bed frame inspections in the past twelve months.…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow acceptable standards of practice when they failed to follow physician orders for administering medications through one resident of two residents (Resident (R) 28) receiving enteral (tube feeding) tube from a sampled 13 residents. The nurse failed to crush medications separately and mix with the prescribed amount of water. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications Through an Enteral Tube with a review date 01/20/24, indicated Flush tubing with 15-30 ml [milliliters] of water unless otherwise specified. Dilute the crushed or split medication with 15-30 ml of warm water unless otherwise specified. Administer the medication by gravity flow. If administering more than one medication flush with 15 ml, unless otherwise specified, between each medication. When last medication drains from tubing, use a final flush of 15 ml of warm water (or prescribed amount). Clamp tubing when finished, and/or reattach to pump if continuous feeding. During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-17 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided grooming and hygiene needs for three residents (Residents #1, #8, and #20), who were unable to perform their own activities of daily living (ADLs), in a review of 12 sampled residents. The facility's certified census was 24. 1. Review of the facility's policy, Perineal Care, dated 5/26/21, showed the following: -The purpose of this procedure is to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition; -For a female resident: a. Wet washcloth and apply soap or skin cleansing agent or use a perineal wipe; b. Wash perineal area, wiping front to back; c. Continue to wash the perineum moving from inside outward to and including thighs, alternating from side to side, and using downward strokes. Do not reuse the same area of the washcloth and/or perineal wipe to clean the urethra or labia; d. If using soap and water, rinse perineum thoroughly…
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 before2022-06-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control procedures for hand hygiene, changing gloves, and use of a barrier to prevent the spread of bacteria or other infection causing contaminants for three residents (Residents #1, #14, and #20) during personal cares and dressing changes, in a review of 12 sampled residents. The facility certified census was 24. 1. Review of the facility's policy, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated last reviewed 4/28/21, showed the following: -Wash hands with soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: a. When hands are visibly soiled; b. After personal use of the toilet or conducting personal hygiene; c. After contact with a resident with infectious diarrhea including, but not limited to infections caused by Norovirus, bacillus antracis, salmonella, shigella and C. difficile; -Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol or alternatively, soap (antimicrobial 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 · D2022-06-17 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 staff followed physician orders when providing treatment to a pressure ulcer (damage to an area of the skin caused by constant pressure on the area for a long time) for one resident (Resident #1), in a review of 12 sampled residents. The facility census was 24. Review of the facility policy, Pressure Injury Treatment Protocol, reviewed 5/28/22, showed the following: -Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the care of existing pressure injuries and the prevention of additional pressure injuries; -Interventions/Care Strategies: Pressure injury treatment requires a comprehensive approach, including, debridement, managing infections, managing systemic issues (edema, venous insufficiency, etc.), maximizing the potential for healing, and pain control; -Stage III (full thickness tissue loss; subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed; slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss; may include undermining and tunneling) protocol:…
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 · D2022-06-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to safely transfer one resident (Resident #20), in a review of 12 sampled residents. Staff did not properly apply or use the gait belt (an assistive device which can be used to help safely transfer a person from a bed to a wheelchair or assist with sitting and standing) during the transfer. The facility certified census was 24. Review of the facility policy, Safe Lifting and Movement of Residents, dated 10/14/19 and last reviewed on 5/28/21, showed the following: -Resident safety, dignity, comfort and medical condition will be incorporated into goals and decisions regarding the safe lifting and moving of residents; -Nursing staff, in conjunction with therapy staff, will assess individual resident's needs for transfer assistance on an ongoing basis. Staff will document resident's transferring and lifting needs in the care plan. Such assessment will include: a. Resident's preferences for assistance; b. Resident's mobility (degree of dependency); c. Resident's size; d. Weight-bearing ability; e. Cognitive status;…
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 · D2022-06-17 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services consistent with acceptable standards of practice to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs) for one resident (Resident #14), who had a urinary catheter (a sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine), in a review of 12 sampled residents. The facility reported one resident with a urinary catheter. The facility census was 24. Review of the facility's policy, Perineal Care, dated 5/26/21, showed the following: -The purpose of this procedure is to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition; -If the resident has an indwelling catheter, gently wash the juncture of the tubing from the insertion site down the catheter about three inches. If using soap and water, gently rinse and dry the area. Review of the facility's policy, dated 11/4/19 and last reviewed 5/28/21, showed the following: -The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract…
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
$41,347 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $41,347 — penalty dated 2024-12-05
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to EVERTRUE — 5 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 | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.8★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LUTHERAN SENIOR SERVICES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 02/02/2000 |
| BEUMER, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/27/2022 |
| CHRISTELL, ROY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/25/2017 |
| MEADOWS, MEGAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/24/2022 |
| MUELLER, HARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2016 |
| SOMBART, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/25/2017 |
| SOMMER, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| TOON, NORMAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/01/2019 |
| ANDERSON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2019 |
| BROWN, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/25/2018 |
| MARLES, ADAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2021 |
| SCHAEFER, RONALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/06/2023 |
| SNEED, CHADWICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| TICE, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/25/2017 |
| COOPER, VALERIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/07/2026 |
| LIN, WALTER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/02/2000 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 $1.4M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 265767. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-02, 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.