Nhc Healthcare, West Plains
211 Davis Drive, West Plains, MO 65775 · For profit - Corporation · 114 certified beds · (417) 256-0798 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 5 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 | 14.6% | 18.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.9% | 5.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 1.7% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 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 | 7.7% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.8% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.2% | 25.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| 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 | 9.9% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.7% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.2% | 26.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 21.7% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.90 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.33 | 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.
55.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 70 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 29 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 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 18% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 44% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 55.8%CMS range 47.0–65.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.7%CMS range 7.8–17.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 65.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 75.9% | 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 | 65.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 94.7% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 3.7–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.74 | 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 114 beds and averages 70.4 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 44 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 3.54 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.64 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment free from accident hazards. Staff failed to secure access to soiled laundry and chemicals in an unlocked soiled linen laundry room. The room contained a sink basin of bleach water and an open container of multipurpose cleaner solution. The unlocked, unlatched soiled linen room presented a potential hazard to all residents who were able to move freely around the facility with 14 residents at increased risk due to their mental capacity from a diagnosis of dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning) or Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions). The facility census was 61. Review of the facility policy titled, Chemical Storage, undated, showed: - Keep chemicals locked up away from patients when not in use. Review of the Product Specification Document titled, Rapid Multi-Surface Disinfectant Cleaner, dated 10/19/23, showed: - Keep out of reach of children; - Precautions: Concentrate is…
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 before2025-02-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices during incontinent care for two residents (Residents #5 and #16) out of four sampled residents, catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) care for one resident (Resident #21) out of one sampled resident, and wound care for two residents (Residents #5 and #58) out of two sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure proper infection control measures during administration of insulin for one resident (Resident #37) out of one sampled resident and touched medications with bare hands for one resident (Resident #118) out of five sampled residents. The facility also failed to ensure proper infection control measures during laundry services. The facility census was 61. Review of the facility's policy titled, Safety and Sanitation Best Practice Guidelines, dated 11/2017, showed: - Glove use should never take the place of the first and primary barrier against germs, proper handwashing;…
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 · D2025-02-07 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a urinary indwelling catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) drainage bag was kept off the floor for one resident (Resident #61) out of three sampled residents. The facility census was 61. Review of the facility's policy titled, Catheter Care, undated, showed: - The policy didn't address catheter tubing or drainage bags not touching the floor. 1. Review of Resident #61's medical record showed: - admitted on [DATE]; - Diagnosis of urine retention. Review of the resident's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated February 2025, showed: -An order to change the indwelling/suprapubic (catheter inserted through the abdomen into the bladder for urine drainage) catheter every 30 days. Insert the catheter size 16 French (Fr- the measurement used to measure sizes of urinary catheters) and bulb size 5-10 cubic centimeter (cc) on the 1st of the month, during day 6:00 AM - 06:00 PM. Diagnosis of urinary retention, dated, 01/23/25;…
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 · D2025-02-07 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of ongoing assessments, monitoring, and communication between the facility and the dialysis (a process for removing waste and excess water from the blood) center for one resident (Resident #264) out of one sampled resident. The facility census was 61. Review of the facility's policy titled, Care of a Hemodialysis Patient, undated, showed: - Will communicate concerns with dialysis center of any pertinent information/changes with communication observation sent with resident; - The hemodialysis access site will be observed every shift to ensure the dialysis dressing is intact and if there are any signs and symptoms of infection. Should signs and symptoms of infection be noted, the physician will be contacted; - The hemodialysis access site will be palpated (to feel or exam the body with hands or fingers) for the presence of a thrill (a vibration caused by blood flow) or auscultated (use a stethoscope to listen to the sounds inside of…
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 · D2025-02-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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, the facility failed to ensure the medication cart was locked while unattended and failed to ensure a safe medication system when leaving medications unattended and unsupervised for one resident (Resident #16) out of ? sampled residents during a medication pass. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 61. Review of the facility policy titled, Specific Medication Administration Procedures, dated 01/01/19, showed: - All medication storage areas (carts) are locked at all times unless in use and under direct observation of the medication nurse/technician. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage in the Facility, dated 01/01/19, showed: - Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked when not attended by persons with authorized access; - Schedule II medications are stored in an affixed, double locked compartment separate from all other non-controlled medications; - Bedside medication storage is permitted for residents who wish to self-administer medications, upon the written…
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 · F2022-02-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to keep food safe from potential contamination when staff did not air dry dishes and stacked dishes while still wet which could potentially contaminate any food prepared for residents. The facility census was 61. Record review of the facility's policy, titled Safety and Sanitation Best Practice Guidelines, dated 2003 and revised 11/2017, showed the following information: -Air-dry all items; -Towels may contaminate items; -Make sure all items are completely dry before stacking to prevent wet-nesting (when dishes are stacked wet and promote bacterial contamination). Record review of the 2013 Food Code, issued by the Food and Drug Administration, showed the following information: -After cleaning and sanitizing, equipment and utensils shall be air-dried or used after adequate draining before contact with food. -Items must be allowed to drain and to air-dry before being stacked or stored. Stacking wet items such as pans prevents them from drying and may allow an environment where microorganisms can begin to grow. 1.…
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 · E2022-02-18 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of a transfer to a hospital, including the reasons for the transfer, for five residents (Residents #10, #43, #57, #59, and #210). The facility census was 61. Record review of a facility's policy entitled Transfer/Discharge, revised 2/2021, showed the following: -A resident may be transferred or discharged to another health care institution or discharged home upon the written order of the attending physician; -Sufficient information will be provided to the patient to assure continuity of care, regardless of the destination of the patient or the reason for the transfer. (The policy did not give information pertaining to a written notification to the resident and/or resident's representative of a transfer to a hospital.) 1. Record review of Resident #10's nurses' progress notes showed the following information: -On 11/9/2021, staff reported critical laboratory results to the physician 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 · E2022-02-18 · tag F0625 — patternNotify 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to give written information to the resident and/or resident's representative of the facility's bed hold policy for three residents (Residents #10, #43, and #57) who were transferred out to the hospital. The facility census was 61. Record review of a facility's policy entitled Transfer/Discharge, revised 2/2021, showed the following: -A patient may be transferred or discharged to another health care institution or discharged home upon the written order of the attending physician; -Sufficient information will be provided to the patient to assure continuity of care, regardless of the destination of the patient or the reason for the transfer. (The policy did not address staff providing a written notification of the facility's bed hold policy to the resident and/or resident's representative upon transfer to a hospital.) 1. Record review of Resident #10's nurses' progress notes showed the following information: -On 11/9/2021, staff reported critical laboratory results to the physician and followed orders to send him/her 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 · E2022-02-18 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a a risk/benefit review and document alternatives attempted prior to side rail use for two residents (Resident #43 and #58); failed to obtain informed consent for the use of side rails for four residents (Resident #43, #57 #58 210); and failed to complete a side rail safety check to include measurements of the bed frame and all bed rails for risk of entrapment for four residents (Residents #6, #26, #57, and #210). The facility failed to care plan the use of the side rails for four residents (Resident #6, #26, #43, and #210). The facility census was 61. Record review of a facility policy statement entitled Bed Safety, revised December 2007, showed the following information: -The facility shall strive to provide a safe sleeping environment for the resident; -The resident's sleeping environment shall be assessed by the interdisciplinary team, considering the resident's safety, medical conditions, comfort, and freedom of movement, as…
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 · E2022-02-18 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less then 5% when staff made five errors out of 27 opportunities resulting in an 18.51% error rate. Staff failed to correctly dilute intravenous (administered into a vein) antibiotic and start the antibiotic infusion at the correct time for one resident (Resident #57), failed to prime insulin pens for two residents (Residents #1 and #46), and administered insulin outside of accepted time parameters for two residents (Residents #19 and #20), during random medication pass observations. The facility had a census of 61. 1. Record review of the facility provided policy titled Medication Administration-General Guidelines, dated 2006, showed the following information: -Personnel authorized to administer medications should do so only after they have familiarized themselves with the medication; -Prior to administration, the medication and dosage schedule on the resident's medication administration record (MAR) is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-02-18 · 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, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program when the facility failed to ensure staff wore face coverings (masks) appropriately to prevent the potential spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19 -an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus); when the facility failed to properly clean and disinfect glucometers (digital machine used to test the glucose/sugar level in blood) after use for five residents (Resident #1, #19, #31, #46, and #59); when the facility staff continued to administer medications to three residents (Residents #7, #12 and #20) after the medications had fallen onto unclean surfaces; and when staff failed to administer and read tuberculosis (TB - potentially serious infectious disease that mainly affects the lungs) tests for three staff members (Housekeeping Aide M, Activity Director, and Laundry Aide N) at hire. The facility census was 61. 1. Record review of the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) guidance for Healthcare Workers, titled Facemask Do's and Don'ts,…
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 · D2022-02-18 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff treated all residents with dignity and respect when they did not provide a dignity bag for one resident's (Resident #57) catheter (sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) bag. The facility census was 61. Record review of the facility's policy titled Urinary Catheter Care, dated October 2010, showed the following information: -Purpose of the policy is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections; -The policy did not address use of catheter bag privacy covers. Record review showed the facility did not provide a policy regarding dignity and respect. 1. Record review of Resident #57's face sheet (a brief resident profile sheet) showed the following: -admission date of 1/19/2022; -Diagnoses included urinary tract infection (infection in any part of the urinary system, kidneys, bladder), bacteremia (bacteria in the blood) and chronic kidney disease stage 4 (kidneys are moderately or severely damaged and are not working as they should). Record review of the resident's 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 · D2022-02-18 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors when staff administered insulin (medication used to help control blood sugar levels) without priming the insulin pen prior to administration and without following manufacture recommendations to ensure the full dose of insulin was administered for two residents (Resident #1 and #46). The facility had a census of 61. Record review of the facility's undated policy, titled How to Use an Insulin Pen, included the following information: -Remove pen cover; -Get the needle ready and screw the needle onto insulin end of pen; -Prime the pen and clear air from the needle. This adjusts the pen and needle for good accuracy when it is time to measure the insulin dose. Turn the dose selector knob at end of the pen to one or two unit; -Hold the pen with needle pointing upward, press knob up completely while watching for insulin drop or stream to appear. Repeat, if necessary, until insulin is seen at needle tip. The dial should be back at zero after completing 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION — 69 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; 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
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as an investment firm. That’s a fact worth knowing about who ultimately profits from the home. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- MORGAN STANLEY — investment firm · 5.30% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- VANGUARD GROUP INC — investment firm · 9.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| NHC/DELAWARE INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 02/01/2000 |
| MORGAN STANLEY INSTITUTIONAL ADVISORS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/08/2024 |
| RECTOR, MELVIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/2000 |
| NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2000 |
| NHC-OP LP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2000 |
| BIDWELL, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/21/2025 |
| DODSON, VICKI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2019 |
| KIDD, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2017 |
| LAWING, JENNIPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/02/2026 |
| ROGERS, HEATHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/31/2026 |
| SWIFT, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/16/2025 |
| BLACKROCK INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/20/2019 |
| DIMENSIONAL FUND ADVISORS LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/07/2023 |
| MORGAN STANLEY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/08/2024 |
| NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2000 |
| VANGUARD GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 16 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.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $577K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 265155. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-07, 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.