Aspire Senior Living Webb City
2077 Stadium Drive, Webb City, MO 64870 · Jasper County · 120 certified beds · avg 105 residents/day · certified since Jun 30, 1986
Part of chain: ASPIRE SENIOR LIVING (16 facilities, chain avg rating 1.9★)
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, one-off · Oct 27, 2021 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.
Corrected: Dec 11, 2021 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 1, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Mar 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (36)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. |
| Dec 9, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. |
| Dec 9, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. |
| Dec 9, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Dec 9, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 9, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Dec 9, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint |
| Aug 13, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 |
| Feb 27, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · from a complaint |
| Feb 27, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint |
| Feb 27, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint |
| Feb 27, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint |
| Feb 27, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint |
| Feb 27, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint |
| Feb 27, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint |
| Feb 7, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 1, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint |
| Feb 1, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The 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. |
| Feb 1, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Feb 1, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint |
| Feb 1, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Oct 27, 2021 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of state agencies and advocacy groups, along with a notice that residents may file complaints with the state survey agency. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 7).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 14 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2024 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 16 | 0 | F |
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)
1 fine totaling $25,454.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2024 | Fine | $25,454 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Missouri avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.69 | 3.66 | 3.95 | top 45% in Missouri; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.29 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 25% in Missouri; bottom 9% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.36 | 3.22 | 3.50 | top 40% in Missouri; top 49% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.17 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 18% in Missouri; bottom 7% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 0.0 | 56.0 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 47.8 | 42.9 | — |
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 2.68, RN 0.21, weekend 2.44. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company · changed ownership in the last 12 months
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brody, Michael | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Brown, Barbara | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Brown, Daniel | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| CHP SNF Holdings LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| CHP SNF Opco Holdings LLC | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| CHP Snfco LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Eickhoff, Pamela | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Leipham, Michelle | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Shevlyagin, Victor | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Stadtmueller, David | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Brown, Daniel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Brown, Daniel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Cavero, Fernando | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Cavero, Fernando | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| CHP SNF Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/23/2026 |
| CHP Snfco LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/23/2026 |
| Eickhoff, Pamela | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Eickhoff, Pamela | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Hero Health Management, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Hero Health Management, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What training and competency checks do your nurse aides go through, and how do you keep their skills current?"
- "Who oversees antibiotic use here, and how do you decide when an antibiotic is really needed?"
- "Who is your infection preventionist, and what training do they have?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joplin Gardens | 7.2 mi | Joplin, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| NHC Healthcare, Joplin | 7.2 mi | Joplin, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Aspire Senior Living Joplin | 7.9 mi | Joplin, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Communities of Wildwood Ranch | 9.2 mi | Joplin, MO | ★★★★☆ | 5/5 | |
| Westgate | 9.2 mi | Joplin, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| St Luke's Nursing and Rehabilitation | 9.5 mi | Carthage, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Aspire Senior Living Carthage | 9.8 mi | Carthage, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Galena Nursing & Rehab Center | 10.4 mi | Galena, KS | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Quaker Hill Manor | 14.6 mi | Baxter Springs, KS | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Pittsburg Care and Rehab | 19.6 mi | Pittsburg, KS | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Via Christi Village Pittsburg | 19.6 mi | Pittsburg, KS | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sarcoxie Health Care Center | 19.7 mi | Sarcoxie, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265307.