3105 Bluff Creek Drive, Columbia, MO 65201 (opens Google Maps) · Boone County · (573) 442-6060· 132 certified beds · avg 118 residents/day · certified since May 5, 1992 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Nov 1, 2024 · 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 (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: Dec 9, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 24, 2025 · 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): 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 5, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 14, 2025 · 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): 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 19, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 41 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The 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. F-0803
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0803 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0881 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0887 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0550 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0578 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0607 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0657 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Feb 24, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Jan 14, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Nov 1, 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. · F-0584 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0623 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0625 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Nov 1, 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| May 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| May 20, 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 |
| Apr 25, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0812 |
| Jan 11, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Dec 7, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Dec 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Dec 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0677 |
| Jun 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 29, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0677 |
| Jun 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Jun 29, 2023 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 13).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 13 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 13 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 2 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 13 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
3 fines totaling $37,621.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2025 | Fine | $9,110 |
| Jan 14, 2025 | Fine | $9,110 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | Fine | $19,401 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.31 | 3.66 | 3.95 | top 22% in Missouri; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.60 | 0.49 | 0.69 | top 22% in Missouri; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.94 | 3.22 | 3.50 | top 20% in Missouri; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.48 | top 12% in Missouri; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 61.8 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 36% in Missouri; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 56.5 | 47.8 | 42.9 | bottom 38% in Missouri; bottom 26% 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 4.20, RN 0.59, weekend 3.83.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.20 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Bluffs, the. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacon, Suzette | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/30/2023 |
| Baker, Jennifer | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2025 |
| Dresner, Jessica | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2025 |
| Fairchild, Julia | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/09/2021 |
| Fairchild, Julia | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/09/2021 |
| Fairchild, Julia | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/09/2021 |
| Forvis Mazars LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/17/2021 |
| Gershman Investment Corp. | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/24/2011 |
| Gilbert, Barry | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/31/2022 |
| Harrington, Ranshell | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/26/2024 |
| KPM Cpas, PC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2023 |
| Midwest Physical Therapy PC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Minner, Donna | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/28/2023 |
| Moore, Christina | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2019 |
| Moore, Christina | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2019 |
| Moore, Christina | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2019 |
| Moss, Janet | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2023 |
| Prentice-Kuhn, Amy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Prost, Evan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/30/2024 |
| Simpson, Doris | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2024 |
Showing 20 of 23 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 3 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neighborhoods Rehabilitation and Skilled Nursing B | 0.2 mi | Columbia, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lenoir Health Care Center | 0.6 mi | Columbia, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Columbia Manor Health & Rehabilitation | 0.8 mi | Columbia, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| South Hampton Rehabilitation & Health Care Center | 2.6 mi | Columbia, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Columbia Post Acute | 3.0 mi | Columbia, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Parkside Manor | 4.9 mi | Columbia, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Villa at Blue Ridge, the | 5.1 mi | Columbia, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Fulton Nursing & Rehab | 19.4 mi | Fulton, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Kingdom Care Senior Living | 19.4 mi | Fulton, MO | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Fulton Manor Care Center | 19.5 mi | Fulton, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Boone, MO — 9 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265498.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details