MissouriShelbina

Baptist Homes of Shelbina

142 Shelby Plaza Road, Shelbina, MO 63468 · Shelby County · 120 certified beds · avg 59 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1998

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$20,695
Fines, last 3 years
4.33
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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 · Jul 1, 2025 · 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: Aug 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 22, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

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 (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Apr 15, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 22, 2024 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.

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 28, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (35)

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
Jun 8, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint
Jul 1, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jul 1, 2025F · 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.
Jul 1, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Jul 1, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 1, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 1, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Jul 1, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 1, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 1, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 1, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Jul 1, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · 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
Apr 8, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint
Apr 8, 2025D · 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
Feb 22, 2024▲ G · Actual 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
Feb 22, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 22, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint
Feb 22, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint
Sep 13, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Sep 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Sep 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Sep 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Sep 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months.
Sep 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Sep 13, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way.
Sep 13, 2023D · 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.
Dec 20, 2019F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Dec 20, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 20, 2019D · 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.
Dec 20, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Dec 20, 2019D · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (11 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
201950F
2023110F
202442G ▲
2025141J ▲
202610E

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 $20,695.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jul 1, 2025Fine$20,695

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)4.333.663.95top 22% in Missouri; top 28% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.590.490.69top 24% in Missouri; top 50% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.443.223.50top 8% in Missouri; top 13% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.310.330.48top 41% in Missouri; bottom 34% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.056.045.8
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 3.52, RN 0.48, weekend 3.61. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 1/5

Who owns this facility

Government - County

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Angles, MarkIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/09/2024
Edris, AlexandraIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/20/2024
Edris, AlexandraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/20/2024
Edris, AlexandraIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/20/2024
Hawkins, LewisIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/06/2002
Lackey, KathrynIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/08/2009
Myers, JerryIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE12/14/1999
Perrigo, JuliaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/09/2017
Salt River Nursing Home DistrictOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/09/2024
Wilt, LoriIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/08/2017
Yost, ShellyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE02/11/2008

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
Clarence Care Center11.8 miClarence, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Monroe Manor15.4 miParis, MO★★★★★5/5
Monroe City Manor Care Center16.8 miMonroe City, MO★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Shelbina →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265694.