MissouriBrookfield

Brookfield Health Care Center

215 East Pratt, Brookfield, MO 64628 · Linn County · 60 certified beds · avg 32 residents/day · certified since Apr 29, 1996

Part of chain: RELIANT CARE MANAGEMENT (34 facilities, chain avg rating 1.2★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$14,800
Fines, last 3 years
2.43
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)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 18, 2026 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Mar 20, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 15, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 21, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 12, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 12, 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 (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (43)

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
Mar 18, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 15, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 12, 2025▲ 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
Sep 12, 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. · from a complaint
Jun 12, 2025▲ 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.
Jun 12, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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. · from a complaint
Jun 12, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Jun 12, 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.
Jun 12, 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.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not properly hold, secure, and manage residents' personal money that was deposited with it for safekeeping. Facilities holding residents' funds must keep careful, honest accounts.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility hired someone with an official finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft against them. Facilities are not allowed to employ people with such findings.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 12, 2025E · 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.
Jun 12, 2025E · 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.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Jun 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 12, 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.
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Jun 12, 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.
Jun 12, 2025D · 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.
Jun 12, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay).
Mar 17, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · from a complaint
Oct 4, 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.
Oct 4, 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.
Oct 4, 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.
Oct 4, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 4, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Oct 4, 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.
Oct 4, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Oct 4, 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.
Oct 4, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 30, 2020F · Potential for harm, 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.
Jan 30, 2020F · 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.
Jan 30, 2020E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jan 30, 2020D · 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.
Jan 30, 2020D · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 24).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202050F
202390F
2025283G ▲
202611G ▲

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 $14,800, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Mar 18, 2026Fine$14,800
Jun 12, 2025Payment Denial39 days from Sep 12, 2025

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)2.433.663.95bottom 12% in Missouri; bottom 3% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.300.490.69bottom 27% in Missouri; bottom 10% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.303.223.50bottom 15% in Missouri; bottom 5% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.340.330.48top 32% in Missouri; bottom 41% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)78.456.045.8bottom 5% in Missouri; bottom 2% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)71.447.842.9bottom 17% in Missouri; bottom 11% in the U.S.

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 2.74, RN 0.35, weekend 2.60. 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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Destefane, RichardIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
RCG INCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Reliant Care Group LLCOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Richard J. Destefane Revocable Living TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Arshad, AbdullahIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Arshad, AbdullahIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Brookfield Re Associates, L.L.C.OrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Destefane, RichardIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Destefane, RichardIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Olsen, JoIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Olsen, JoIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Reliant Care Management Company LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
Reliant Care Management Company LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/28/2025
Richard J. Destefane Revocable Living TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025
TLG II LLPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2025

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Life Care Center of Brookfield1.2 miBrookfield, MO★★☆☆☆1/5
Pioneer Skilled Nursing Center8.8 miMarceline, MO★★★☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 2 closest →

All facilities in Brookfield →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265644.