Salem Memorial District Hospital
35629 Highway 72, Salem, MO 65560 · Non profit - Corporation · 18 certified beds · (573) 729-6626 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- the CMS record shows $92,988 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-20)
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 |
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 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 32.7% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.1% | 5.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 9.1% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 18.8% | 18.5% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 0.0% | 4.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.7% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 42.4% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.1% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.3% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.1% | 23.5% | 17.1% | typical |
* 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.
Staffing
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. Inspectors cited this home for failing to submit its staffing data to CMS (F0851) — see the citation below; CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-10-16 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — widespreadEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to provide documentation of monthly drug regimen reviews for five (Residents #1, #2, #4, #13 and #15) of five sampled residents. The facility census was 13.1. Review of the facility's policy titled Long Term Care Drug Regimen Review, dated 06/20/22, showed the drug regimen of each resident must be reviewed at least once a month by a licensed pharmacist. This review must include a review of the resident's medical chart.2. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 09/17/25, showed staff assessed the resident as: -Cognitively intact;-Diagnoses of Diabetes, urinary tract infection (UTI) and paraplegia, paralysis of the legs and lower body;-Received opioids; -Received anticoagulants; -Received antibiotics; -Received anti-anxiety medication;-Received insulin injections seven of the past seven days. Review of the resident's medical record showed the record did not contain documentation the pharmacist…
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 · F2025-10-16 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to designate a person to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services with the appropriate qualifications, when the facility did not employ a qualified dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional full-time. This failure has the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 17.1. Review of the facility's job description titled Food Service Director dated 04/08/21, showed the purpose of the position is to provide supervision over all dietary functions and staff as directed/instructed, which included assisting in planning, organizing, developing, implementing, and directing the dietary services department, as well as its program and activities, in accordance with current rules, regulations, and guidelines that govern the facility. Review of the food service director's personnel records showed a hire date for the food service director's position listed as 01/27/25. Review showed the records did not contain documentation of prior dietary management experience in a nursing facility 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 · Dcited before2025-10-16 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to follow professional standards when physical therapy orders were not initiated for one resident (Resident #1). The facility census was 13.1. Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Management: Ordering and Transcribing, dated 03/01/14, showed all medication and treatment orders shall be written in the medical record or entered in the computerized order entry system of the resident and signed by the ordering licensed independent practitioner. All orders for treatment shall include the type of treatment, specific requirements of the treatment and frequency of the treatment.2. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Sheet (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 09/17/25, showed staff assessed the resident as cognitively intact with a diagnosis of paraplegia, (a severe or complete loss of motor function in the lower extremities and lower portions of the trunk), and generalized muscle weakness.Review of the resident's care plan, dated 09/23/25, showed the resident's goal related to paraplegia 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 · Ecited before2024-09-27 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Reviewed AT Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to follow professional standards when staff prepared four medication cups with medications prior to the timed medication pass and left one resident (Resident #10) medication unattended on top of the medication cart. Facility staff failed to notify three resident's (Resident #5, #7, and #13) physician regarding medications not being administered on time. The facility census was 18. 1. Review of the Facility's Administration of Drugs policy, dated 01/24/14, showed medications may not be prepared in advance and must be administered within one hour of preparation. 2. Observation on 09/25/24 at 10:10 A.M., showed the medication cart contained: -One medication cup labeled with a first name contained one pill; -One medication cup labeled with a first name contained eight various pills; -One medication cup labeled with a first name contained two various pills; -One medication cup labeled with a first name contained five various pills.…
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 · E2024-09-27 · 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 Reviewed AT Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to obtain informed consent from the resident and/or resident representative for the use of side rails for one resident (Resident #5) and failed to complete an entrapment risk assessment or obtain a physician's order for use of the bed rails for five residents (Resident #5, #8, #11, #12, and #13), out of five sampled residents. The facility census was 18. 1. Review of the facility's policies showed staff did not provide a policy for Entrapment Risk Assessments. Review of the facility's Bed Rails Policy, dated 03/14/2014, showed bed rails are considered a restraint, three rails may be raised at one time to enhance bed mobility of the patient, all four rails may not be raised at the same time. Review of the facility's Consent for Use of Side Rails form, provided to each resident/resident representative at the time of admission, showed staff are directed to obtain a signed consent from the resident/resident representative, 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 · E2024-09-27 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Reviewed AT Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5% out of 25 opportunities observed, 15 errors occurred, resulting in a 60% error rate, which affected three residents (Resident #5, #7, and #13) out of seven sampled residents. The facility census was 18. 1. Review of the Facility's Medication Administration policy, dated 05/31/20, showed the individual administering a medication will be aware of the following information concerning each medication before administration: Appropriate timing of medication administration. 2. Review of Resident #5's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated September 2024, showed staff is directed to administer medications at 8:00 A.M.: -Levothyroxine (treat low thyroid) 100 micrograms (mcg) daily on an empty stomach at 8:00 A.M.; -Tramadol (pain reliever) 50 milligrams (mg) twice daily at 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.; -Aspirin 81 mg daily at 8:00 A.M.; -Sennoside/docusate (treat constipation) 8.6/50 mg twice daily at 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.; -Multivitamin once daily at 8:00 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 · E2024-09-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to store food in a manner to prevent potential contamination and outdated use. Facility staff failed to reheat pureed food to prevent the growth of food-borne pathogens and potential for food-borne illness. Facility staff failed sanitize kitchen wares in a manner to prevent contamination. Facility staff failed to cover kitchen waste containers when not in actual use to deter the attraction of pests and rodents. These failures have the potential to affect all residents. The census was 18. 1. Review of the facility's Food Storage policy, revised [DATE], showed: -All food will have proper dates, labels and be properly covered when stored; -All prepared, ready-to-eat foods will be marked with a date of preparation and/or expiration date; -All food will be used by the expiration date. Review showed the policy did not address food storage on the freezer floor. 2. Observation on 09/25/24 at 10:41 A.M., showed the walk-in cooler contained opened…
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 · D2024-09-27 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
reviewed AT Based on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to implement an effective Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Qssurance Preformance Improvemnt (QAPI) program when staff did not meet and discuss interventions to correct any on-going systemic issues that pertain to the Long Term Care (LTC). The facility census was 18. 1. Review of the facility's LTC QAPI Policy, revised 06/16/22, showed the following: -To identify and correct quality deficits along the areas for improvement within Long Term Care; -The multidisciplinary team will meet monthly to evaluate a current projects and identify areas that need improvement or included. The LTC Medical Director will be made aware of the findings of the LTC QAPI Committee Monthly, LTC Director will report to the Hospital QAPI Committee quarterly. Review of the facility's records, showed staff did not provide documentation of a QAPI/QA program. During an interview on 09/27/24 at 2:16 P.M., the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) said he/she is familiar with what the QA or QAPI process because the hospital side meets quarterly for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-22 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, staff failed to provide residents with a written response to grievances. The facility census was 16. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Grievances, Investigating and Grievances and Complaints, revised 03/07/17, showed staff were directed to do the following: -It is the policy of this facility to investigate all grievances and complaints filed with the facility; -The Grievance/Complaint Investigation Report must be filed with the administrator within five (5) working days of the receipt of the grievance or complaint form; -The resident, or acting on behalf of the resident, will be informed of the findings of the investigation, as well as any corrective actions recommended, within ten (10) working days of the filing of the grievance or complaint; -A copy of the Grievance/Complaint Investigation Report must be attached to the Grievance and Complaint Report and filed in the Medical Records; -Copies of all reports must be signed and will be made available to the resident or person acting on behalf of the resident. Review of the facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide 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, facility staff failed to provide appropriate hair and nail care for three dependent sampled residents (Resident #3, #8, and #10). The facility census was 16. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Direct Resident Care, Hygiene and General Care, dated 01/24/23, showed staff were directed to do nail care every week and as needed (PRN). Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Care Management, Scope of Care, dated 01/24/14, showed staff were directed to ensure each resident receives daily personal hygiene to assure cleanliness, good skin care, good grooming, and oral hygiene taking into account individual preferences. Review of the policies provided showed no policy in regard to facial hair management. 2. Review of Resident #3's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 06/27/23, showed staff assessed the resident as follows: -Cognitively intact; -Independent with personal hygiene; -Did not reject care; -Impairment…
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 · C2023-08-22 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) data (staffing information based on payroll data) for five quarters. The facility census was 16. 1. Review of the policies provided by the facility showed no PBJ policy. Review of the facility's PBJ Quarterly reports showed: -01/01/22 through 03/31/22, showed no data submitted for the quarter; -04/01/22 through 06/30/22, showed no data submitted for the quarter; -07/01/22 through 09/30/22, showed no data submitted for the quarter; -10/01/22 through 12/31/22, showed no data submitted for the quarter; -01/01/23 through 03/31/23, showed no data submitted for the quarter. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 8:31 A.M., the Long Term Care Director said he/she has worked for the facility for a week. He/She said PBJ data was not submitted for the last quarter, and it should be submitted quarterly. The director said he/she does not know why the data was not submitted. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 9:59 A.M., the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) said the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is responsible…
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 · C2023-08-22 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespreadImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to implement an infection prevention and control program (IPCP) that included an Antibiotic Stewardship Program that addressed antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. The facility census was 16. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Surveillence, Prevention, and Control of Infection, Renal Dosing of Selected Antimicrobials, dated 02/16/23, showed staff were directed to do the following: -All Medications administered at the facility will be of the appropriate dose, route and frequencey in consideration of the patient's condition, indications, and lab values; -The antimicrobial agents in this policy are considered to be of special interest to the Antimicrobials Stewardship Committee and require precautions and attention to ensure they are dosed appropriately. This policy will authorize dose adjustments to be made dependent upon patient specific factors, according to published guidelines and/or prescribing information. Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention Program, dated…
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
$92,988 in federal fines across 12 penalties.
- $4,893 — penalty dated 2024-02-20
- $4,893 — penalty dated 2024-02-12
- $14,679 — penalty dated 2024-01-22
- $4,893 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2024-01-02
- $13,635 — penalty dated 2023-12-11
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-11-20
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-11-13
- $13,635 — penalty dated 2023-10-23
- $13,635 — penalty dated 2023-09-25
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-09-05
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-08-28
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in MO
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 26A381. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-16, 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.