Mary, Queen and Mother Center
7601 Watson Road, Shrewsbury, MO 63119 · St. Louis County · 217 certified beds · avg 73 residents/day · certified since Mar 5, 1982
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$19,133
Fines, last 3 years
3.72
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: 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)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Mar 24, 2025 · F-0689
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 (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.
Corrected: Apr 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (41)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 |
| Nov 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Mar 24, 2025 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Mar 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Mar 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. |
| Mar 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 8, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 8, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Jan 8, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Jan 8, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jan 8, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Jan 8, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 8, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Jan 8, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not properly hold, secure, and manage residents' personal money that was deposited with it for safekeeping. Facilities holding residents' funds must keep careful, honest accounts. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not properly protect the personal money residents deposited with it for safekeeping. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility required residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits or pay privately as a condition of moving in, or failed to tell residents which types of care it does not provide. Both practices are against the rules. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. |
| Oct 18, 2021 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 5).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 25 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 8 | 1 | K ▲ |
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)
1 fine totaling $19,133, plus 2 Medicare payment denial periods.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2025 | Payment Denial | 30 days from Feb 4, 2026 |
| Mar 24, 2025 | Fine | $19,133 |
| Mar 24, 2025 | Payment Denial | 9 days from Apr 26, 2025 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Missouri avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.72 | 3.66 | 3.95 | top 44% in Missouri; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.44 | 0.49 | 0.69 | top 45% in Missouri; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.30 | 3.22 | 3.50 | top 43% in Missouri; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.48 | top 30% in Missouri; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 52.1 | 56.0 | 45.8 | top 38% in Missouri; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 47.8 | 42.9 | top 1% in Missouri; top 1% in the U.S. |
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 3.31, RN 0.39, weekend 2.94. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Who owns this facility
Non profit - Church related
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klingerman, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/03/2017 |
| Lyons, Jamie | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/19/2017 |
| Wesley, Sister Suzanne | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/20/1998 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me the call buttons in the bathrooms and bathing areas, and tell me your average response time when one is pressed?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
- "What is your approach to psychiatric medications — how do you try non-drug options first and work to reduce doses over time?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lutheran Convalescent Home | 1.7 mi | Webster Groves, MO | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Bethesda Dilworth | 2.8 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Lansdowne Village | 3.1 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sherbrooke Village | 3.3 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pine Grove Manor | 3.4 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Bluebird Wellness and Rehabilitation | 3.7 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Oak Park Care Center | 4.0 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Lemay Nursing | 4.2 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Grove at Kirkwood, the | 4.2 mi | Kirkwood, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Magnolia Wellness Center | 4.7 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Barnes-Jewish Extended Care | 4.7 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| St Louis Altenheim | 4.8 mi | Saint Louis, MO | —/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
All facilities in Shrewsbury →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265159.