Maries Manor
174 Ballpark Road, Vienna, MO 65582 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 98 certified beds · (573) 422-3177 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- nursing-staff turnover (65%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 29% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 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 | 7.3% | 18.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.5% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 3.4% | 2.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.4% | 4.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.8% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 49.5% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.1% | 17.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 50.0% | 23.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.05 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 98 beds and averages 61.5 residents a day — about 63% occupied, or roughly 36 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.73 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 1.97 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 2.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.92 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.28 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 65% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-09 · 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 interview and record review, facility staff failed to ensure one resident (Resident #1) remained free from accidents when Resident #1 received Resident #2's medications. The facility census was 66. 1. Review of the facility's Medications, Errors and Drug Reactions policy, undated, showed staff are directed to safeguard the resident and provide emergency care as needed. Complete a resident assessment every shift for at least seventy-two hours. The policy did not address contacting the pharmacy after a medication error.Review of the facility's Medication Administration Guidelines policy, undated, showed it is the purpose of this facility that residents receive their medications on a timely basis and accordance with established policies. Drug administration shall be defined as an act in which an authorized person, in accordance with all laws and regulations governing such acts, gives a single dose of a prescribed drug or biological to a resident. The complete act of administration entails removing an individual's dose from a previously dispensed, properly labeled container…
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 before2025-08-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility staff failed to maintain the kitchen ceiling in good repair to prevent contamination of food items. This failure has the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 65.1. Observation on 08/12/25 at 11:40 A.M. showed the kitchen with the following: -Ceiling was covered with a white textured, plaster like material;-A 33-inch crack in the ceiling above the end of the steam table with the ceiling sagging on one side of the crack;-A 22-inch crack in the ceiling and areas of white flaking ceiling material above the ware storage rack near the service window;-A 16-inch crack between the prep counter and bakery;-A 3-inch area of white flaking ceiling material above the steam table;-A 4-inch area of white flaking ceiling material above the ceiling mounted utensil hanger;-Two areas of white flaking ceiling material and a sagging, water stained area near the coffee pots.During an interview on 08/12/25 at 1:00 P.M., the Dietary Manager (DM) said he/she was aware of the cracks in the ceiling. The DM said there were issues with small…
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 before2025-08-14 · 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, facility staff failed to appropriately sanitize a multi-use glucometer (a device for monitoring blood sugars) between use for two (Resident #3, and #51) out of five sampled residents. Staff failed to perform appropriate hand hygiene and glove changes in a manner to prevent or reduce the spread of bacteria and other infection causing organisms during blood glucose checks for three (Resident #28, #45, and #51) out of five sampled residents. Staff failed to utilize personal protective equipment (PPE) for two (Resident #7 and #47) out of two sampled residents on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) during wound care and/or catheter care The facility census was 65.1. Review of the facility's policies showed staff did not provide a policy on glucometer disinfection.Review of the facility's Blood Glucose Monitoring System Manual, undated, showed the manual directs staff as follows:-Meter should be cleaned and disinfected between each patient;-The following products 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 · F2025-08-14 · 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 Antibiotic Stewardship Program with antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor and track antibiotic use within the facility. The facility census was 65. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program , dated 4/10/25, showed: -The Director of Nursing (DON) will be responsible to audit the clinical assessment documentation at the time of the antibiotic prescription. This will include all relevant documents such as the Stop and Watch, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR), physician communication, and follow-up with diagnostic testing;-The DON will be responsible for auditing of the completeness of antibiotic prescribing documentation to include dose, route, start date, end date, days of therapy, and indication;-The Antibiotic Stewardship Program team will monitor antibiotic starts by indication;-All patients/residents transferred to or from the facility who are on an antibiotic will have adequate documentation of dose, duration, and indication for 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 · Dcited before2025-08-14 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain professional standards of practice when staff failed to transcribe a treatment order for one resident (Resident #7) and accurately transcribe a medication order for a Fentanyl patch (to treat pain) for one resident (Resident #75) out of two sampled. The facility census was 65.1. Review of the Facility's Wound Care Treatment policy, undated, showed there must be a specific order for the treatment. 2. Review of Resident #7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool, 06/30/25, showed staff assessed the resident as:-Cognitively intact;-At risk for developing pressure ulcers/injuries;-Has a stage 1 unhealed pressure injury (initial stage of skin and tissue damage caused by prolonged pressure).Review of the resident's Initial and Weekly wound documentation, dated 06/30/25, showed:-Resident admitted with stage 1 decubitus ulcer right inner buttock;-Treatment: Optifoam (a brand of foam dressing used for wound care) 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 · Fcited before2024-05-23 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — widespreadEnsure 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 Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to follow professional standards when staff prepared 40 medication cups with medications prior to the timed medication pass and performed resident blood sugar tests with expired test strips for four residents (Resident #14, #58, #61, and #62) out of four sampled residents. The facility census was 64. 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration Guidelines, dated 03/2015, showed facility staff are directed as follows: -The complete act of administration entails removing an individual dose from a previously dispensed, properly labels container, verifying it with the physician's orders, giving the individual dose to the proper resident, and promptly recording the information; -Medications may not be prepared in advance and must be administered within one hour of preparation; -The same person preparing the doses for administration must administer the medications. 2. Observation on [DATE] at 9:08 A.M., showed the east…
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 before2024-05-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 and label medications in a safe and effective manner when staff failed to date the opened multi-dose medication bottles, insulin vials, and medications were left unattended on top of one medication cart. The facility census was 64. 1. Review of the facility's Storage of Medication policy, undated, shows facility staff were directed as follows: -All medications for residents must be stored at or near the nurse's station in a locked medicine room or one or more locked mobile medication carts; -All mobile medication carts must be under visual control of the staff at all times when not stored safely and securely; -No discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals may be retained for use. All such drugs must be returned to the issuing pharmacy or destroyed in accordance with established guidelines; -Drugs must be stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, or carts. 2. Observation on [DATE] at 9:08 A.M., showed 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 · F2024-05-23 · 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 64. 1. Review of the facility's Dining Services Supervision policy, dated May 2015, showed Overall supervisory responsibility of the Dining Services Department shall be assigned to a full-time qualified Dining Services Manager. This Dining Services Manager, if not qualified, functions with frequent regularly scheduled consultation from a person so qualified. Review showed the policy did not contain information related to the education and experience requirements for the dining services manager. Review of the facility's Dining Services Manager policy, dated May 2015, showed the policy listed the minimum qualifications for the Dining Services Manager as: -High school diploma or GED equivalent; -Two years of experience…
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 before2024-05-23 · 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 to wear facial hair restraints to protect food and food contact surfaces from potential contamination. The facility staff failed to allow sanitized dishes to air dry prior to stacking in storage and use to prevent the growth of food-borne pathogens. These failures have the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 64. 1. Review of the facility's Dietary Personnel Guidelines policy, dated May 2015, showed the policy directed hairnets or bouffant disposable caps should be worn at all times and should cover the entire head of hair. Review showed the policy did not contain information related to facial hair restraints. Review of a sign posted on the back of the door to the mechanical dishwashing station, undated, showed Food employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets and beard restraints that cover hair exceeding ¼ of 1 inch and are designed to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils, linens and unwrapped single-service 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 · E2024-05-23 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 call lights were within reach for three residents (Resident #18, #44, and #51) out of 16 sampled residents. The facility census was 64. 1. Review of facility's Call Light, Use of policy, undated, showed the following: -Respond promptly to resident's call for assistance; -When providing care to residents, be sure to position the call light conveniently for the resident's use. -Be sure all call lights are placed on the bed at all times, never on the floor or bedside stand. -Check the call light system at regular intervals. 2. Review of Resident #18's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) a federally mandated assessment tool, dated 02/27/24, showed staff assessed the resident as: -Moderate cognitive impairment; -Diagnoses: Dementia, and Traumatic brain injury (TBI); -Dependent assistance needed for toilet transfers, tub/shower transfers, and personal hygiene. Review of the resident's care plan, last reviewed on 02/23/24, showed staff are…
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 8 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to review and revise care plan for one resident (Resident #3) out of one sampled resident with interventions for cellulitis and for one resident (Resident #47) out of one sampled resident with medication noncompliance. The facility census was 64. 1. Review of the facility's policies showed staff did not provide a policy for care plans. 2. Review of the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, 3.0 and Care Planning Policy, undated, showed: -The Comprehensive Care Plan will also be individualized to each resident; -Comprehensive Care Plan will be updated when a change of condition is warranted; -Included in the Comprehensive Care Plan will be the resident's right to refuse treatment, any specialized services the facility will provide, the resident's goals for admission, desired outcomes, and discharge plans; -The Comprehensive Care Plan will be revised on an ongoing basis to reflect…
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 before2023-02-24 · 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, interviews, and record reviews, facility staff failed to ensure florescent light bulbs were protected; to maintain kitchen environment equipment in a clean and sanitary manner, and to properly store open food to prevent cross contamination and outdated usage. The facility staff also failed to perform hand hygiene as often as necessary; to wash, rinse, and sanitize the food preparation sink between uses to prevent cross-contamination and the growth of food-borne pathogens and to ensure the ice bin drained through an air gap. This failure had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The census was 58 with a capacity of 98. 1. Review of the facility's Weekly Preventative Maintenance Checklist, undated, showed: - The policy did not address the kitchen lights; - The policy did not address protecting light bulbs. Review of the facility's Monthly Preventative Maintenance Checklist, undated, showed the policy did not address kitchen lighting. Observations on 2/22/23 at 9:15 A.M., showed four florescent light bulbs over the three compartment warewashing…
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 · E2023-02-24 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 a comfortable and homelike environment, when staff failed to ensure resident areas were in good repair. Additionally, staff failed to ensure one resident's (Resident #12) wheelchair was free of rips and tears. The facility census was 58. Review of the policies provided by the facility showed they did not contain a policy for environmental concerns. 1. Observations from 2/21/23 at 10:45 A.M. through 2/24/23 at 3:00 P.M., showed the 100 hall walls with chipped paint and black marks. Further observation showed multiple door frames with broken trim and the spa with missing baseboard. 2. Observation on 2/22/23 at 1:47 P.M., showed room [ROOM NUMBER] with a sticky floor, and gouged walls. 3. Observation on 2/22/23 at 4:30 P.M., showed room [ROOM NUMBER] with a torn floor mat, and walls with missing paint. 4. Observation on 2/23/23 at 10:53 A.M., showed room [ROOM NUMBER] with dead bugs on the floor, chipped paint, gouged walls, 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 before2023-02-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 ensure medications were stored in a safe manner, by not ensuring medications were contained in their original package and properly labeled in one medication cart on the Special Care Unit (SCU). Additionally, facility staff failed to maintain a correct count of controlled medications for two residents (Resident #37 and Resident #39). The facility census was 58. Review of the facility's Storage of Medications Policy, dated March of 2015, showed: -Medications must be stored in the container in which they are received; -Drugs must be stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers or carts. 1. Observation on 2/21/23 at 3:00 P.M., showed the SCU medication cart with loose pills scattered throughout the drawers. Further observation showed the drawers contained the following pills: -One gray capsule with G220 150 printed on it; -One green capsule with E 88 printed on it; -Two light blue tablets inscribed with 87 on one side and H on the other side; -One light blue tablet with 40 inscribed on one side; -One yellow…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-02-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment when staff failed to use appropriate hand hygiene and infection control procedures during the provision of care for two residents (Resident #1 and #13), and during wound care for one resident (Resident #1). Additionally, facility staff failed to decrease the risk of infection when staff failed to ensure sanitary conditions for oxygen tubing for one resident (Resident #12) and a urinary catheter (tube placed in the bladder to drain urine) drainage bag for one resident (Resident #24). The facility census was 58. 1. Review of the facility's Handwashing policy, dated March 2015, showed the purpose is to reduce the transmission of organisms from resident to resident, nursing staff to resident and resident to nursing staff. Further review showed it did not contain direction in regard to when to perform hand hygiene. Review of the facility's Perineal Care policy, dated March 2015, showed 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 · D2023-02-24 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 maintain resident dignity when staff failed to sit and interact while assisting two residents (Resident #1 and Resident #39) during meal time and failed to allow one resident (Resident #17) access to his/her bathroom. The facility census was 58. Review of the facility's Patient [NAME] of Rights, undated, showed each resident shall be treated with consideration, respect and full recognition of his/her dignity and individuality, including privacy in treatment and care of his/her personal needs. Review of the facility's Resident Rights document, undated, showed: -The resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside of the facility. A facility must protect and promote the rights of each resident; -Right to confidentiality, privacy and respect. 1. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool, 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.
- No harm found · Ccited before2025-08-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 destroy medications weekly and failed to store the medication behind a lock cabinet for 27 residents (Resident #2, #10, #26, #29, #30, #31, #32, #37, #42, #46, #53, #56, #59, #65, #66, #67, #68, #76, #77, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, #86, and #87). The facility census was 65.1. Review of the facility's Storage of Medications policy, undated, showed the following guidelines: -All medications for residents must be stored at or near the nurse's station in a locked cabinet, a locked medicine room, or one or more locked mobile medication carts;-Medications must be stored in the container in which they were received;-Drugs must be stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, or carts. Review of the facility's Destruction of Medications policy, undated, showed the following guidelines:-The facility will destroy and dispose of medications in a safe manner and in accordance with applicable law;-All medications not returned to the issuing pharmacy will be destroyed;-When a medication has been discontinued, 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.
- No harm found · C2023-02-24 · tag F0575 — widespreadPost a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to post the telephone number for the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) Adult Abuse and Neglect Hotline (used to report allegations of abuse and neglect) in a form and manner accessible to residents and visitors, and failed to post the name, address and phone number for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman and resident rights on the secured unit. The facility census was 58. Review of the facility's Resident Rights policy, undated, showed: -The resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility; -Public information will be displayed throughout common areas of the facility, including Area Agency on Aging Posters, Resident Rights Universal Language, Picture Posters, and any other pertinent information obtained through Area Agency of Aging or local Ombudsman. Observation on 2/21/23 at 11:43 A.M., showed the facility did not post the name, address, and toll free telephone number for the Adult Abuse 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN — 56 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 55 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 55; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LINCOLN, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 02/01/2008 |
| LINCOLN, JUDY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 02/01/2008 |
| GUNTER, TRINA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 06/01/2014 |
| LTC MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/21/2015 |
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 88% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 29% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 265249. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.