3520 Chouteau Ave, Saint Louis, MO 63103 (opens Google Maps) · St. Louis City County · (314) 771-2100· 100 certified beds · avg 92 residents/day · certified since Apr 6, 1995 · 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: LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA (194 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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 · Oct 21, 2024 · 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 (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: Sep 16, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
Showing the latest 3 of 37 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. F-0947
The 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. F-0561
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2026 | 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 16, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · F-0947 |
| Jan 16, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0561 |
| Jan 16, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · F-0567 |
| Jan 16, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 16, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0658 |
| Jan 16, 2026 | 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 |
| Oct 21, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0623 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0640 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0732 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0656 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint · F-0660 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Feb 14, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Feb 14, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not properly notify residents about the balance of money it holds for them, or failed to return those funds when a resident was discharged, evicted, or died. · F-0569 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0623 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0625 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0759 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Mar 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 13 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 17 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2026 | 7 | 0 | E |
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 $15,646.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2024 | Fine | $15,646 |
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) | 3.91 | 3.66 | 3.95 | top 37% in Missouri; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.69 | top 44% in Missouri; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.47 | 3.22 | 3.50 | top 35% in Missouri; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 40% in Missouri; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 66.4 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 23% in Missouri; bottom 9% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 50.0 | 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 3.54, RN 0.40, weekend 3.14.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.54 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Life Care Center of St Louis. 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 - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crooks, Joanna | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/19/2009 |
| Crooks, Joanna | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/19/2009 |
| Cross, Cindy | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/28/1993 |
| Life Care Centers of America, INC. | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/23/1995 |
| Preston, Forrest | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1994 |
| Preston, Forrest | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/28/1993 |
| Preston, Forrest | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1994 |
| Swanker, Richard | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2011 |
| Thurmond, Joan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2002 |
All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Life Care Centers of America — 194 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 193 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beauvais Rehab and Healthcare Center | 1.3 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Bernard Care Center | 1.4 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Grand Manor Health Care Center | 1.4 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Blue Circle Rehab and Nursing | 1.8 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Magnolia Wellness Center | 3.0 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Delhaven Manor | 3.0 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pine Grove Manor | 3.2 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Lansdowne Village | 3.4 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Oak Park Care Center | 3.5 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Carrie Elligson Gietner Health Care Center | 4.0 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| St Louis Altenheim | 4.3 mi | Saint Louis, MO | —/5 | ||
| Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation | 4.5 mi | University City, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265610.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details