Miller County Care And Rehabilitation Center
1157 Highway 17, Tuscumbia, MO 65082 · Non profit - Other · 86 certified beds · (573) 369-2318 Medicare & Medicaid certified
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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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 | 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 27.0% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.1% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.0% | 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 | 8.0% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.1% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.2% | 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 | 7.5% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.1% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.2% | 23.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.70 | 2.11 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.00 | 2.33 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
52.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 28 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.7% 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 21 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 0.08 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 52.6%CMS range 32.6–65.8 | 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 | 10.2%CMS range 6.8–16.8 | 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 | 66.7% | 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 | 52.4% | 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 | 71.4% | 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 | 8.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.75 | 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 62.3 residents a day — about 72% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.13 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.25 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.34 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 2.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.33 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.30 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2025-04-24 · 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, the facility staff failed to designate a person to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services (DFNS) 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 60. 1. Review of the facility's Dietitian policy, revised November 2022, showed: -If a dietician is not employed full time (35 or more hours per week) a director of food and nutrition services will be designated. The individual will: a. be a certified dietary manager; or b. be a certified food service manager; or c. be nationally certified in food service management and safety; or d. have a associated's (or higher) desgree in food service management or hospitality, if the course study includes food service or restaurant management, from an accredited institution; or e. has two or more years of experience in the position of director of food and nutrition services in a nursing facility setting and has…
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 before2025-04-24 · 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 thaw frozen meat in a manner to prevent the growth of food-borne pathogens. This failure has the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 60 . 1. Review of the 2022 United States Food and Drug Administration Food Code, section 3-501.13 Thawing, showed: -Except as specified in paragraph (D) of this section, time/temperature control for safety food shall be thawed: (A) Under refrigeration that maintains the food temperature at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (dF) or less; or (B) Completely submerged under running water: (1) At a water temperature of 70 dF or below, (2) With sufficient water velocity to agitate and float off loose particles in an overflow, and (3) For a period of time that does not allow thawed portions of ready-to-eat food to rise above 41 dF, or (4) For a period of time that does not allow thawed portions of a raw animal food requiring cooking as specified under paragraphs 3-401.11(A) or (B) to be above 41 dF for more than 4 hours including: (a) The time the food is exposed to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to complete an accurate Level I Pre-admission Screening (used to evaluate for the presence of psychiatric conditions to determine if a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II screen is required) as required for two residents (Resident #6 and #56) out of 18 sampled residents with new mental health diagnoses. The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled admission Criteria, revised March 2019, showed staff are directed to use the PASRR to screen all potential admissions to determine if they meet the criteria for mental disorder, intellectual disabilities, or related disorders regardless of payer source. 2. Review of Resident #6's Face Sheet, dated 09/30/22, showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Review of the resident's medical record showed staff used a Level I Pre-admission Screening completed at another facility on 09/10/21, which did…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 accurately complete the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) process prior to admission for two residents (Residents #18, and #44) out of 18 sampled residents. The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled admission Criteria, dated March 2019, showed all new admissions and readmissions are assessed for mental disorders, intellectual disabilities or related disorders RD per the Medicaid PASSAR process. The facility conducts a Level I PASSAR screen for all potential admissions, regardless of payer source, to determine if the individual meets the criteria for mental disorders, intellectual disabilities or related disorders. 3. Review of Resident 18's Face Sheet, dated 12/04/24, showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Schizophrenia, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Mild Cognitive Impairment. Review of the resident's medical record showed staff completed a Level I Pre-admission…
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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion (ROM), movement of a joint, for one resident (Resident #23) out 18 sampled residents, who had a contracture (shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) to the left hand. The facility census was 60. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Mobility and Range of Motion, dated July 2017, showed residents will not experience an avoidable reduction in ROM. Residents with limited ROM will receive treatment and services to increase and/or prevent a further decrease in ROM. Residents with limited mobility will receive appropriate services, equipment and assistance to maintain or improve mobility unless reduction to mobility is unavoidable. The resident's care plan will include specific interventions, exercises and therapies to maintain, prevent avoidable decline in, and/or improve mobility and ROM. Resident will receive restorative nursing care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-02-23 · 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 staff failed to perform hand hygiene as often as necessary using approved techniques to prevent cross-contamination and reduce the risk of infection during the provision of perineal care for two residents (Resident #2 and Resident #8) and during food preparation and service. Facility staff also failed to develop and implement complete policies and procedures for the inspection, testing and maintenance of the facility's 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 62. 1. Review of the facility's policy, titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised August 2019, showed the policy directed staff as follows: -Wash hands with soap and water when hands are visibly soiled; -Use an alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) containing at least 62% alcohol or use soap and water for the following situations: -Before and after direct contact with residents; -Before moving…
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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to notify one resident's physician (Resident #4) when his/her blood sugar reached a level greater 450 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL). The facility census was 62. 1. Review of the policies provided by the facility did not contain a policy for physician notification instruction, physician orders, or professional standards. 2. Review of Resident #4's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 12/09/23, showed staff assessed the resident as follows: -Cognitively intact; -Rejection of care not exhibited; -Insulin injections received seven out of the last seven days; -Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus (the body's ability to produce or respond to the hormone insulin is impaired, resulting in abnormal metabolism of carbohydrates and elevated levels of glucose in blood and urine). Review of the resident's care plan, revised 02/16/24, showed staff documented the resident's glucose will stabilize and range between normal limits and absence of signs of hypoglycemia (low blood sugars) or hyperglycemia (high…
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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to ensure one resident (Resident #53), who required continuous oxygen, received continous oxygen as ordered by the physician. The facility census was 62. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, revised October 2010, showed staff are directed to: -Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration; -Review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs; -Assemble the equipment and supplies as needed. Did not contain direction for staff in regard to continuous oxygen use. 2. Review of Resident #53's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed staff assessed the resident as follows: -Cognitively intact; -Rejection of care not exhibited; -Independent with transfers and ambulation; -Uses a walker; -Requires oxygen therapy; -Diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe. Review of the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-11-17 · 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, interviews, and record review, the facility staff failed perform hand hygiene as often as necessary and to wash, rinse, and sanitize the food preparation sink between uses to prevent cross-contamination and the growth of food-borne pathogens. Facility staff also failed to to store dishes in a safe and sanitary manner, utilize hair restraints while in the kitchen, store the sanitation rag submerged in the sanitation liquid, ensure the ice bin drained through an air gap, and properly store open food to prevent outdated usage. This had the potential to affect all facility residents. The census was 61. 1. Review of the facility's handwashing policy, undated, showed staff were instructed to wash hands after eating, after touching the face, and before putting on new gloves. Observation on 11/16/22 at 9:55 A.M., showed [NAME] I wore gloves as he/she prepared resident lunch meals. [NAME] I touched his/her gloved hand to the front of his/her facemask and continued to touch food related items, to include the food processor blade which he/she laid on the processed…
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 · E2022-11-17 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 create an environment in which residents could make choices in regard to significant aspects of their lives when staff implemented a new smoking policy, and did not allow four residents (Resident #23, #48, #54 and #62) to smoke as they previously could. The facility census was 61. 1. Review of the facility's Smoking Policy, revised 11/14/22, showed staff were directed when the outside temperatures are below 32 degrees and/or above 100 degrees, residents will not be allowed to go outside and smoke. 2. Review of Resident #23's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 10/15/22, showed staff assessed the resident as follows: -Cognitively Intact; -Required no physical assistant from staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs); -Used a walker. Review of the resident's Care Plan, revised 11/2/22, showed staff documented: -admitted to the facility on [DATE]; -Resident to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 5 citations
- Potential for harm · E2022-11-17 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 consistent documentation in regard to residents' Physician's Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (designed to improve patient care by creating a medical order form that records residents' treatment wishes so staff know what treatments the resident wants in the event of a medical emergency) for four residents (Resident #4, #8, #24 and #50). The facility census was 61. 1. Review of the facility's Emergency Procedure - Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) policy, undated, showed: -If an individual is found unresponsive and not breathing normally, a licensed staff member who is certified in CPR shall initiate CPR unless it is known that a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order that specifically prohibits CPR exists for the individual or there are obvious signs of irreversible death (e.g. rigor mortis (stiffening of the joints and muscles of the body)); -If the resident's DNR status is unclear, CPR will be initiated until it is determined that there is a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-11-17 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to check the Employee Disqualification List (EDL) (a list of individuals who have been determined to have abused or neglected a resident or misappropriated funds or property belonging to a resident) in accordance with their policy for existing staff quarterly, for nine out of ten sampled employees. The facility census was 61. 1. Review of the facility's Employee Disqualification List Policy, dated 11/14/22, showed in addition to pre-employment EDL checks, the facility must also check all their current employees against each quarterly EDL update to assure that no one employed, in any capacity has been added to the EDL, since the initial EDL check. 2. Review of Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) D's personnel records, showed the CNA with a hire date of 8/2/21. Further review showed the personnel record did not contain documentation the facility had completed an EDL check since his/her hire date. 3. Review of [NAME] E's personnel records, showed the [NAME] with a hire date of 1/18/21. Further review showed the personnel record did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-17 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 written information to the resident and/or the resident's representative of the bed hold policy for three sampled residents (Resident #3, #8, and #12). The facility census was 61. 1. Review of the facility's Notice of Bed-hold and readmission policy, undated, showed: -If a resident requires transfer to an acute hospital, the facility will offer the resident the opportunity of electing to have the bed held for a maximum of 30 days; -Before a resident is transferred to a hospital or goes on therapeutic leave, the facility will provide written information to the resident and a family member or legal representative specifying: -The duration of the bed-hold policy under the State plan, during which the resident is permitted to return and resume residence in the facility; -After the period of bed-hold specified above has been exceeded, the resident shall be readmitted to the facility immediately into the first available bed in a semi-private room…
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 · D2022-11-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards when staff failed to properly propel two residents (Resident #8 and #19) in wheelchairs in a manner to prevent accidents. The facility census was 61. 1. Review of the facility's Wheelchair, Use of policy, undated, showed the purpose is to provide mobility for the non-ambulatory residents with safety, comfort and learning to become independent in activities of daily living (ADLs) and directed staff to: -Do not remove foot rests unless resident uses feet on floor to enable mobility; -Lower foot rests and place resident's feet on foot rests if used. Position feet in good body alignment and elevate legs as ordered. 2. Review of Resident #8's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 9/15/22, showed staff assessed the resident as: -Cognitively impaired; -Required physical assistance from one staff…
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 before2022-11-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to provide wound care in a manner to reduce the risk of infection for two residents (Resident #24 and Resident #4). The facility census was 61. 1. Review of the facility's Hand Washing policy, undated, directed staff to wash hands before beginning work, before and after direct resident contact, before and after handling equipment, before and after eating, after using the restroom and anytime they are noticeably soiled. The policy did not contain direction regarding hand hygiene between glove changes. Review of the facility's Wound Care policy dated October 2010, directed staff to: -Use a disposable cloth (paper towel is adequate) to establish clean field on resident's overbed table. Place all items to be used during procedure on the clean field. Arrange supplies so they can be easily reached; -Wash and dry hands, apply gloves, and remove dressing; -Remove glove over dressing and discard into appropriate receptacle and wash and dry hands thoroughly; -Apply gloves and use a no-touch technique to cleanse the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BECKHAM, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/23/2010 |
| KEMNA, CARL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/25/2013 |
| MCCARGAR, REX | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/24/2019 |
| MORROW, HAROLD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/01/1998 |
| PEMBERTON, JAMI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/16/2015 |
| SHOWERS, TIFFANY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/06/2022 |
| WILSON, SANDRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/28/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265713. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-24, 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.