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★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 17, 2024
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 11, 2026
$23,520
Fines, last 3 years
5.74
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 11, 2026 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 13, 2024 · 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: Mar 1, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 11 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 complaintF-0689
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
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
View all 11 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
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
Jun 11, 2026
▲ 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
Sep 17, 2024
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
Sep 17, 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. · F-0689
Sep 17, 2024
C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread
The 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. · F-0577
Feb 13, 2024
▲ 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
Dec 28, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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 · F-0919
Aug 10, 2023
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 8, 2023
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
Oct 24, 2019
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 24, 2019
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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
Oct 24, 2019
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. · F-0677
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 3).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2023
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2024
All citations:
4
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2026
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2019
3
0
F
2023
3
0
D
2024
4
1
G ▲
2026
1
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.
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
Jun 11, 2026
Fine
$23,520
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityMissouri averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
5.74
Missouri average:
3.66
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.46
Missouri average:
0.49
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
5.39
Missouri average:
3.22
U.S. average:
3.50
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)
5.74
3.66
3.95
top 3% in Missouri; top 5% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.46
0.49
0.69
top 41% in Missouri; bottom 32% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
5.39
3.22
3.50
top 3% in Missouri; top 4% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.35
0.33
0.48
top 29% in Missouri; bottom 43% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
55.9
56.0
45.8
top 49% in Missouri; bottom 23% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
48.0
47.8
42.9
top 46% in Missouri; bottom 39% 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 5.42, RN 0.44, weekend 5.08.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.42 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Delmar Gardens South. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
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.
Before you compare prices
Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Gabe Grossberg and George Grossberg, Trustees of the Henry and Barbara
Organization
5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
8%
10/31/1997
George Grossberg and Gabe Grossberg, Trustees of the Henry and Barbara
Organization
5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
8%
10/31/1997
Goldberg-Nom LLC
Organization
5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
25%
04/03/2000
Grossberg, Gabe
Individual
5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
16%
10/31/1997
Grossberg, George
Individual
5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
11%
10/31/1997
Non-Gst Family Trust Est U/W of Israel Goldberg Fbo Janice Bitanski
Organization
5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
6%
04/10/2013
Non-Gst Family Trust Established U/W of Israel Goldberg Fbo Harry Zvi
Organization
5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
6%
04/10/2013
Non-Gstfamily Trust Est U/W Israel Goldberg Fbo Diane Fredman
Organization
5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
6%
04/10/2013
Bank of America, N.a.
Organization
5% or Greater Mortgage Interest
NOT APPLICABLE
01/11/2000
Delmar Gardens Management Services INC
Organization
Operational/Managerial Control
NOT APPLICABLE
04/01/2005
Grossberg, Gabe
Individual
Corporate Director
NOT APPLICABLE
11/01/1991
Grossberg, Gabe
Individual
Corporate Officer
NOT APPLICABLE
11/01/1991
Marx, Kenneth
Individual
W-2 Managing Employee
NOT APPLICABLE
05/01/2022
Marx, Kenneth
Individual
Corporate Officer
NOT APPLICABLE
04/02/2019
Oppenheimer, Howard
Individual
Corporate Director
NOT APPLICABLE
09/04/1987
Oppenheimer, Howard
Individual
Corporate Officer
NOT APPLICABLE
09/04/1987
Rodgers, Lynn
Individual
W-2 Managing Employee
NOT APPLICABLE
01/05/2020
Woods, Jeanna
Individual
W-2 Managing Employee
NOT APPLICABLE
10/21/2022
All 19 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
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.
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.