Missouri ›Malden

Aspire Senior Living Malden

1209 Stokelan, Malden, MO 63863 · Dunklin County · 58 certified beds · avg 41 residents/day · certified since Mar 27, 1995

Part of chain: ASPIRE SENIOR LIVING (16 facilities, chain avg rating 1.9★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.97
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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.

All citations in the current public record (29)

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
May 16, 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.
May 16, 2025D · 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.
May 16, 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
May 16, 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.
May 16, 2025D · 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Jun 20, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Jun 20, 2024D · 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.
Jun 20, 2024D · 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.
Jun 20, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Jun 20, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Jun 20, 2024D · 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.
Jun 20, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost.
Jun 20, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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.
Jun 20, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Jun 20, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Apr 28, 2023F · 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.
Apr 28, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Apr 28, 2023D · 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 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Apr 28, 2023D · 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.
Apr 28, 2023D · 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.
Apr 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Apr 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status.
Apr 28, 2023D · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (10 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202390F
2024100D
2025100D

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)3.973.663.95top 35% in Missouri; top 41% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.470.490.69top 40% in Missouri; bottom 33% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.893.223.50top 21% in Missouri; top 26% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.280.330.48top 45% in Missouri; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)45.956.045.8top 25% in Missouri; bottom 47% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.047.842.9—

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 3.42, RN 0.40, weekend 3.34. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Calvert, GreggIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest12%06/01/2021
Harris, JerryIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10%06/01/2021
Steele, SheriIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest8%06/01/2021
Calvert, GreggIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2021
Calvert, GreggIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2021
Harris, JerryIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2021
Harris, JerryIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2021

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
Winchester Nursing Center, INC6.5 miBernie, MO★★★★★5/5
Campbell Healthcare & Senior Living8.6 miCampbell, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Gideon Care Center8.8 miGideon, MO★★★★☆5/5
Memory Lane of Dexter14.9 miDexter, MO★★★★☆5/5
Cypress Point-Skilled Nursing by Americare15.3 miDexter, MO★★★★☆4/5
Crowley Ridge Care Center16.4 miDexter, MO★★★★☆5/5
Portageville Health Care Center18.1 miPortageville, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Piggott Healthcare & Senior Living, LLC18.2 miPiggott, AR★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Malden →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265609.