Missouri ›Cedar Hill

Arbor View Nursing and Rehabilitation

6400 the Cedars Court, Cedar Hill, MO 63016 · Jefferson County · 150 certified beds · avg 94 residents/day · certified since May 21, 1990

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$29,491
Fines, last 3 years
2.09
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Oct 13, 2023 · F-0880 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.

Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Nov 24, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (55)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Apr 2, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Apr 2, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly notify residents about the balance of money it holds for them, or failed to return those funds when a resident was discharged, evicted, or died.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve meals and snacks at times that fit residents' needs, preferences, and requests, or did not offer nourishing alternatives for residents who want to eat outside scheduled meal times.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Apr 2, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Apr 2, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Feb 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint
Dec 13, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint
Oct 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to receive the visitors they choose, at the times they choose. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · from a complaint
Jun 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jun 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jun 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Jun 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Jun 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Jun 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Oct 13, 2023▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Aug 15, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint
Dec 6, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Dec 6, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Dec 6, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal.
Dec 6, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Dec 6, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have firmly secured handrails on both sides of its hallways.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Dec 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 18).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022220F
202321K ▲
2024110E
2025200F

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

4 fines totaling $29,491, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Oct 13, 2023Fine$17,141
Oct 13, 2023Payment Denial15 days from Nov 9, 2023
Oct 2, 2023Fine$3,176
Sep 25, 2023Fine$2,823
Sep 5, 2023Fine$6,351

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)2.093.663.95bottom 6% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.280.490.69bottom 23% in Missouri; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing1.773.223.50bottom 5% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.360.330.48top 28% in Missouri; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)53.856.045.8top 41% in Missouri; bottom 28% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)50.047.842.9top 46% in Missouri; bottom 39% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 2.47, RN 0.33, weekend 2.09. Staffing rating: 1/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Aar Opco Holdings LLCOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
KFT Holdings LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
KFT Irrevocable TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
QHS Operations LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Barnes, MelodyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Brewer, DaleIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Brewer, DaleIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/18/2025
Brewer, HeidiIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Bryant, KaitlynIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Caito, JeneeIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Creek, AmandaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Forvis Mazars LLPOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Forvis Mazars LLPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2023
Garner, AmandaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
GS Capital Funding LLCOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
GS Capital Funding LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Hosea, ChristenaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/17/2025
Hosea, ChristenaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/21/2025
Lazar, LeviIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Moore, AngelaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/17/2025

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Marymount Manor9.6 miEureka, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Pacific Care Center10.2 miPacific, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
St Andrew's at Francis Place10.5 miEureka, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
South County Health Care Center13.4 miArnold, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Aegis Health and Rehabilitation13.7 miWildwood, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5
Delmar Gardens of Meramec Valley14.0 miFenton, MO★★★★★5/5
Maple Grove Wellness & Rehabilitation14.2 miFenton, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Woodland Manor Nursing Center14.7 miArnold, MO★★☆☆☆4/5
Hillcrest Care Center INC15.0 miDe Soto, MO★★★★☆4/5
Scenic Wellness and Rehabilitation Center15.2 miHerculaneum, MO★★★★☆5/5
Fieser Nursing Center15.6 miFenton, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
Ellisville Rehabilitation and Nursing15.7 miEllisville, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Cedar Hill →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265430.