Atrium Place Health and Rehabilitation

2600 Redman Road, Saint Louis, MO 63136 (opens Google Maps) · St. Louis County · (314) 355-8585· 120 certified beds · avg 103 residents/day · certified since Jun 15, 1994 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: VERTICAL HEALTH SERVICES (15 facilities, chain avg rating 1.9★)

2/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected Aug 2, 2024

Serious findings on record

most recent Feb 25, 2025

$157,667

Fines, last 3 years

1.80

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · how star ratings work →

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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 25, 2025 · F-0678 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Feb 24, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 25, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Feb 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 10, 2024 · F-0697 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.

Corrected: May 7, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 12, 2023 · F-0698 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.

Why it matters: Mistakes in dialysis care can quickly become life-threatening for residents with kidney failure.

Corrected: Jan 4, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 49 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

Jun 26, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not have doctor's orders in place for a resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted. · from a complaint F-0635
Jun 26, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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 F-0684
Jun 26, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · from a complaint F-0694

View all 49 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Jun 26, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not have doctor's orders in place for a resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted. · from a complaint · F-0635
Jun 26, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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 · F-0684
Jun 26, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · from a complaint · F-0694
Jan 8, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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. · from a complaint · F-0686
Jan 8, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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 · F-0880
Jun 27, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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 · F-0658
Jun 27, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Feb 25, 2025	▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated	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. · from a complaint · F-0678
Feb 25, 2025	▲ G · Actual harm, isolated	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 · F-0684
Sep 23, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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 · F-0600
Aug 2, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Aug 2, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Aug 2, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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. · F-0727
Aug 2, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Aug 2, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · F-0759
Aug 2, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · F-0761
Aug 2, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925
Aug 2, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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. · from a complaint · F-0550
Aug 2, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Aug 2, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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. · from a complaint · F-0550
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · from a complaint · F-0686
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692
May 3, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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 · F-0609
May 3, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · from a complaint · F-0740
Apr 10, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, isolated	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697
Apr 10, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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 · F-0684
Apr 10, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804
Jan 10, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · from a complaint · F-0759
Jan 10, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · from a complaint · F-0882
Jan 10, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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 · F-0880
Dec 12, 2023	▲ G · Actual harm, isolated	The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint · F-0698
Dec 12, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Dec 12, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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 · F-0600
Jul 21, 2022	F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread	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. · F-0812
Jul 21, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565
Jul 21, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Jul 21, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Jul 21, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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. · F-0656
Jul 21, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Jul 21, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Jul 21, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610
Oct 23, 2019	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Oct 23, 2019	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · F-0761
Oct 23, 2019	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · F-0880
Oct 23, 2019	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Oct 23, 2019	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0686
Oct 23, 2019	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0690
Oct 23, 2019	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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. · F-0759

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 10).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2019

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2019	7	0	E
2022	8	0	F
2023	3	1	G ▲
2024	22	1	G ▲
2025	4	2	J ▲
2026	5	0	E

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

5 fines totaling $157,667, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Feb 25, 2025	Fine	$34,808
Apr 10, 2024	Fine	$59,846
Apr 10, 2024	Payment Denial	14 days from May 17, 2024
Dec 12, 2023	Fine	$44,664
Sep 25, 2023	Fine	$4,587
Sep 5, 2023	Fine	$13,762

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

This facilityMissouri averageU.S. average

Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)

1.80

3.66

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

0.15

0.49

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

1.48

3.22

3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Measure	This facility	Missouri avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	1.80	3.66	3.95	bottom 3% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.15	0.49	0.69	bottom 5% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	1.48	3.22	3.50	bottom 3% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.12	0.33	0.48	bottom 7% in Missouri; bottom 2% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	82.0	56.0	45.8	bottom 3% in Missouri; bottom 2% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	83.3	47.8	42.9	bottom 9% in Missouri; bottom 4% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 2.19, RN 0.18, weekend 1.80.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (2.19 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

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

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Atrium Place Health and Rehabilitation. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Miller, William	Individual	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2023
VHS Mo Opco Holdings LLC	Organization	Direct Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2023
Maylack, Elizabeth	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/01/2024
Maylack, Elizabeth	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/23/2025
Miller, William	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2023
Peebles, Jessica	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2023
Peebles, Jessica	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/03/2025
Redman Rd Consulting LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2023
Redman Rd Consulting LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/03/2025

All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Vertical Health Services — 15 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.

Aurora Health and Rehabilitation — Rolla, MO · overall 2/5
Avalon View Health and Wellness — Liberty, MO · overall 3/5
Belleview Care Center — Saint Joseph, MO · overall 1/5abuse
Lee's Summit Place — Lees Summit, MO · overall 3/5
St Joseph Chateau — Saint Joseph, MO · overall 4/5
Chattanooga Health and Rehab Center — Chattanooga, TN · overall 1/5
Agility Health and Rehabilitation — University Place, WA · overall 3/5
Renton Health & Rehabilitation — Renton, WA · overall 2/5

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 14 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

"Are staff on every shift trained and certified in CPR, and how do they know each resident's resuscitation wishes?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
"How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
"When a new resident arrives, how do you make sure the doctor's orders for their care and medications are in place from day one?"
"Who on your staff manages IV therapy, and what training and monitoring is in place?"
"How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"

Also worth asking anywhere

"Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Missouri midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
"Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
"CMS reports 82% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
"Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 95 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Christian Extended Care & Rehabilitation	0.4 mi	Saint Louis, MO	★★★★★	5/5
Crestwood Health Care Center	1.0 mi	Florissant, MO	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuse
Hidden Lake Health Care Center	1.4 mi	Saint Louis, MO	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Delmar Gardens North	1.6 mi	Black Jack, MO	★★☆☆☆	3/5
Lakeview Post Acute	1.7 mi	Florissant, MO	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Pillars of North County Health & Rehab Center, the	2.3 mi	Florissant, MO	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Estates of St Louis, LLC, the	2.4 mi	Saint Louis, MO	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Stonebridge Florissant	2.8 mi	Florissant, MO	★★☆☆☆	3/5
Arbor Hills Care & Rehab Center	3.1 mi	Ferguson, MO	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Estates of Spanish Lake, the	3.8 mi	Saint Louis, MO	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Oak Knoll Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center	3.8 mi	Ferguson, MO	★★☆☆☆	3/5
Willowcreek Wellness & Rehabilitation	4.0 mi	Florissant, MO	★☆☆☆☆	1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in St. Louis, MO — 69 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Avenir at Mark Twain — Bridgeton, MO · overall 1/5
Barnes-Jewish Extended Care — Saint Louis, MO · overall 3/5
Bentleys Extended Care — Overland, MO · overall 1/5abuse
Bentwood Nursing & Rehab — Florissant, MO · overall 1/5
Bethesda Dilworth — Saint Louis, MO · overall 3/5
Bethesda Southgate — Saint Louis, MO · overall 5/5
Big Bend Woods Healthcare Center — Valley Park, MO · overall 1/5
Bluebird Wellness and Rehabilitation — Saint Louis, MO · overall 1/5

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Saint Louis →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265586.