MissouriWashington

Grandview Healthcare Center

201 Grand Ave, Washington, MO 63090 · Franklin County · 102 certified beds · avg 57 residents/day · certified since Jun 29, 1989

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

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.78
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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 · Sep 5, 2025 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint

The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.

Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.

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: Aug 15, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

All citations in the current public record (24)

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
Jan 14, 2026F · 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 14, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Jan 14, 2026E · 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. · from a complaint
Jan 14, 2026E · 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 14, 2026E · 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.
Jan 14, 2026E · 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 14, 2026E · 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 14, 2026E · 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 14, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Jan 14, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jan 14, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 5, 2025▲ G · Actual 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
Jul 11, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Jul 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time.
Jul 11, 2024D · 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.
Jan 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Sep 22, 2023F · 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.
Sep 22, 2023F · 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.
Sep 22, 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.
Sep 22, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Sep 22, 2023E · 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.
Sep 22, 2023E · 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.
Sep 22, 2023E · 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.
Sep 22, 2023E · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202380F
202440E
202511G ▲
2026110F

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)3.783.663.95top 42% in Missouri; top 49% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.380.490.69bottom 43% in Missouri; bottom 20% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.463.223.50top 36% in Missouri; top 44% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.230.330.48bottom 39% in Missouri; bottom 19% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)68.656.045.8bottom 19% in Missouri; bottom 7% 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 3.11, RN 0.31, weekend 2.84. 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 - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Lincoln, JamesIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%05/01/2000
Lincoln, JudyIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%05/01/2000
Lawson, SheliaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE07/08/2005
LTC Management Services LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/11/2011

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
Sunset Health Care Center8.0 miUnion, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
Union Nursing10.1 miUnion, MO★★★★☆4/5
New Haven Care Center10.8 miNew Haven, MO★★★★☆5/5
St Clair Nursing Center14.7 miSaint Clair, MO★★★★★5/5
Pacific Care Center16.5 miPacific, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
Warrenton Manor18.6 miWright City, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Washington →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265374.