MissouriCameron

Cameron Nursing Center

801 Euclid, Cameron, MO 64429 · Clinton County · 120 certified beds · avg 74 residents/day · certified since Mar 1, 1996

Part of chain: OPCO SKILLED MANAGEMENT (66 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
2.29
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.

All citations in the current public record (50)

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
Nov 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Nov 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Mar 20, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 20, 2025D · 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.
Mar 20, 2025D · 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.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Mar 1, 2024F · 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.
Mar 1, 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 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 1, 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 1, 2024E · 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.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 1, 2024E · 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.
Mar 1, 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.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Mar 1, 2024E · 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.
Mar 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Oct 11, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Jan 28, 2022E · 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.
Jan 28, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Jan 28, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 28, 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.
Jan 28, 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.
Jan 28, 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.
Jan 28, 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.
Jan 28, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jan 28, 2022E · 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.
Jan 28, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Jan 28, 2022E · 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.
Jan 28, 2022E · 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.
Jan 28, 2022E · 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.
Jan 28, 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.
Jan 28, 2022D · 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.
Jan 28, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 19).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022160E
202310E
2024120F
2025210F

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)2.293.663.95bottom 10% in Missouri; bottom 2% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.220.490.69bottom 12% in Missouri; bottom 3% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.013.223.50bottom 9% in Missouri; bottom 2% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.220.330.48bottom 35% in Missouri; bottom 16% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)39.656.045.8top 12% in Missouri; top 35% 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 2.68, RN 0.25, weekend 2.35. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Caliber Advisors LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Crestview TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
El Dorado Nursing and Rehabilitation LLCOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
First Sweetzer Holdings LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Hatteras Investments LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Rimpau Holdings TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Sasem Investments LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
801 Euclid Ave Mo, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Mortgage InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
801 Euclid Ave Mo, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Emerald Property Partners LLCOrganization5% or Greater Mortgage InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Emerald Property Partners LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Esdov Investments LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
First Sweetzer Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Garetz, DavidIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/22/2022
Gibraltar TrustOrganization5% or Greater Mortgage InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Gibraltar TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Hagins, ElizabethIndividualIndividual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/08/2025
Hatteras Investments LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Hunter, CynthiaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022
Jubilee Master Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2022

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
Quail Run Health Care Center1.3 miCameron, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
Sunset Home11.7 miMaysville, MO★★☆☆☆3/5
Hill Crest Manor13.3 miHamilton, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
Nick's Health Care Center15.0 miPlattsburg, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Oakridge of Plattsburg15.9 miPlattsburg, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Daviess County Nursing and Rehabilitation18.7 miGallatin, MO★★★☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Cameron →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265633.