Missouri ›Camdenton

Camdenton Windsor Estates

2042 N Business Route 5, Camdenton, MO 65020 · Camden County · 82 certified beds · avg 55 residents/day · certified since Jan 19, 1970

Part of chain: JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN (56 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.54
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 21, 2024 · F-0883

The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.

Why it matters: Flu and pneumonia are leading causes of serious illness and death in nursing homes, and vaccines are a key defense.

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 24, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (45)

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 3, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint
Apr 10, 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.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 10, 2025E · 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.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not notify the appropriate authorities when a resident with a mental disorder or intellectual disability had a significant change in condition.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Apr 10, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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.
Apr 10, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials.
Jan 23, 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. · from a complaint
Jan 23, 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
Nov 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Mar 21, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Mar 21, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Mar 21, 2024F · 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.
Mar 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Mar 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Mar 21, 2024E · 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.
Mar 21, 2024E · 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.
Mar 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024E · 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.
Jan 18, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · from a complaint
Nov 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately. · from a complaint
Dec 2, 2022F · 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.
Dec 2, 2022E · 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.
Dec 2, 2022E · 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 2, 2022E · 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.
Dec 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Dec 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Dec 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Dec 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 2, 2022D · 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.
Dec 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Dec 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Dec 2, 2022C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman.
Dec 2, 2022C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 14).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022150F
202310E
2024121G ▲
2025160E
202610D

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)3.543.663.95bottom 47% in Missouri; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.750.490.69top 10% in Missouri; top 32% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.993.223.50bottom 41% in Missouri; bottom 30% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.360.330.48top 29% in Missouri; bottom 43% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)75.056.045.8bottom 9% in Missouri; bottom 3% in the U.S.
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 2.78, RN 0.59, weekend 2.34. 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: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Lincoln, JamesIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%11/01/1999
Lincoln, JudyIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%11/01/1999
Drake, TimothyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/01/1999
Knight, TheresaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/23/2002
Lincoln, JamesIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/01/1999
Lincoln, JudyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/01/1999
Stutts, CharlotteIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/01/1999

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
Ozark Rehabilitation & Health Care Center17.9 miOsage Beach, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Lake Regional Health Systems18.0 miOsage Beach, MO★★★★★5/5
Laurie Care Center18.2 miGravois Mills, MO★★★★☆4/5
Hermitage Nursing & Rehab18.9 miHermitage, MO★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Arrowhead Senior Living Community19.2 miOsage Beach, MO★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Camdenton →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265091.