4401 Parker Road, Black Jack, MO 63033 (opens Google Maps) · St. Louis County · (314) 355-1516· 240 certified beds · avg 177 residents/day · certified since May 17, 1988 · 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 →
Part of chain: DELMAR GARDENS (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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 · Feb 10, 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 (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: Mar 14, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 2, 2023 · F-0610 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: When allegations aren't investigated, harm to residents can continue unchecked.
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: Dec 5, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 2, 2023 · 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): 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: Dec 5, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
The 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). F-0628
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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). · F-0628 |
| Nov 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Nov 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Feb 10, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Dec 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 26, 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 |
| Jul 26, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jul 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, 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 2, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Nov 2, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0684 |
| Oct 6, 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 |
| Oct 6, 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0655 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · from a complaint · F-0693 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0695 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | 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 8, 2020 | 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 8, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | 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. · F-0658 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | 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 8, 2020 | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Jan 8, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 6).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 13 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 10 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 7 | 1 | J ▲ |
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 →
1 fine totaling $39,299, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2025 | Fine | $39,299 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | Payment Denial | 9 days from Dec 7, 2023 |
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) | 4.17 | 3.66 | 3.95 | top 28% in Missouri; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.21 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 11% in Missouri; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.83 | 3.22 | 3.50 | top 22% in Missouri; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 5% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 42.9 | 56.0 | 45.8 | top 17% in Missouri; top 44% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 47.8 | 42.9 | — |
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 3.56, RN 0.18, weekend 3.27.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.56 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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Delmar Gardens North. 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 →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delmar Gardens Enterprises INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 04/16/2003 |
| Gabe Grossberg and George Grossberg, Trustees of the Henry and Barbara | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 8% | 04/16/2003 |
| George Grossberg and Gabe Grossberg, Trustees of the Henry and Barbara | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 8% | 04/16/2003 |
| Goldberg-Nom LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 25% | 04/16/2003 |
| Grossberg, Gabe | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 16% | 04/16/2003 |
| Grossberg, George | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 11% | 04/16/2003 |
| Non-Gst Family Trust Est U/W of Israel Goldberg Fbo Janice Bitanski | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 04/10/2013 |
| Non-Gst Family Trust Established U/W of Israel Goldberg Fbo Harry Zvi | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 04/10/2013 |
| Non-Gstfamily Trust Est U/W Israel Goldberg Fbo Diane Fredman | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 04/10/2013 |
| Delmar Gardens Management Services INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2005 |
| Grossberg, Gabe | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/16/2003 |
| Marx, Kenneth | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2019 |
| Marx, Kenneth | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/11/2019 |
| Oppenheimer, Howard | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/16/2003 |
| Rodgers, Lynn | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/06/2020 |
| Ulrich, Amber | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/07/2022 |
All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Delmar Gardens — 12 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lakeview Post Acute | 0.1 mi | Florissant, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Pillars of North County Health & Rehab Center, the | 1.0 mi | Florissant, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Crestwood Health Care Center | 1.2 mi | Florissant, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Atrium Place Health and Rehabilitation | 1.6 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Christian Extended Care & Rehabilitation | 1.9 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Willowcreek Wellness & Rehabilitation | 2.7 mi | Florissant, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Stonebridge Florissant | 2.8 mi | Florissant, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Hidden Lake Health Care Center | 2.8 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Rancho Rehab and Healthcare Center | 3.0 mi | Florissant, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Arbor Hills Care & Rehab Center | 3.2 mi | Ferguson, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Florissant Valley Health & Rehabilitation Center | 3.4 mi | Florissant, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Estates of St Louis, LLC, the | 3.4 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in St. Louis, MO — 69 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 265325.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details