Missouri ›Eureka

Marymount Manor

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

313 Augustine Rd, Eureka, MO 63025 (opens Google Maps) · St. Louis County · (636) 938-6770· 174 certified beds · avg 76 residents/day · certified since Mar 23, 1979 · 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: RILEY SPENCE SENIOR LIVING (5 facilities, chain avg rating 1.6★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 13, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Dec 18, 2023
$132,696
Fines, last 3 years
4.93
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Dec 18, 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 (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: Jan 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 18, 2023 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

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: Jan 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 18, 2023 · F-0697 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.

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: Jan 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 51 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

View all 51 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Sep 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0700
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0727
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883
Jun 13, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Jun 13, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jun 13, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jun 13, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jun 13, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jun 13, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0881
Jun 13, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887
Sep 25, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
Sep 25, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint · F-0626
Mar 28, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Mar 28, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Mar 28, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0881
Mar 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint · F-0558
Mar 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Mar 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Mar 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0700
Mar 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · F-0728
Mar 28, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 28, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Mar 28, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 28, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 18, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe 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
Dec 18, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 18, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697
Dec 18, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 18, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint · F-0725
Sep 19, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 30, 2022F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Sep 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607
Sep 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Sep 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · F-0712
Sep 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Sep 30, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 30, 2022C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of state agencies and advocacy groups, along with a notice that residents may file complaints with the state survey agency. · F-0575
Sep 30, 2022C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 15).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2024
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022120F
202363J ▲
2024170F
2025160E

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $132,696.

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.

DateTypeAmount / length
Dec 18, 2023Fine$132,696

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

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: 4.93
Missouri average: 3.66
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.63
Missouri average: 0.49
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.55
Missouri average: 3.22
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.933.663.95top 9% in Missouri; top 14% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.630.490.69top 17% in Missouri; top 44% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.553.223.50top 7% in Missouri; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.330.330.48top 34% in Missouri; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)56.356.045.8bottom 50% in Missouri; bottom 22% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)33.347.842.9top 26% in Missouri; top 33% 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 3.69, RN 0.47, weekend 3.41.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.69 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.

Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Marymount Manor. 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.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Riley Spence & AssociatesOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Riley Spence Management Company, LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Riley, CharlesIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Spence, GregoryIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2025
Thomas H. Spence Marital Trust IOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Thomas H. Spence Marital Trust IIOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Thomas H. Spence Residual TrustOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Herrin, BrittanyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Herrin, BrittanyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Oehler, BrittanyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2025
Oehler, BrittanyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2025
Riley Spence & AssociatesOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/06/2025
Riley Spence Management Company, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Spence, GregoryIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2025
Spence, GregoryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2025
Spence, GregoryIndividualTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2025
Spence, GregoryIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2025
Thomas H. Spence Marital Trust IOrganizationTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Thomas H. Spence Marital Trust IIOrganizationTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Thomas H. Spence Residual TrustOrganizationTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007

Showing 20 of 22 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 2 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Riley Spence Senior Living — 5 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.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
  • "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
  • "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
  • "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
  • "What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
  • "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 56% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 22 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 56 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
St Andrew's at Francis Place1.8 miEureka, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
Aegis Health and Rehabilitation4.2 miWildwood, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5
Ellisville Rehabilitation and Nursing6.0 miEllisville, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Pacific Care Center7.3 miPacific, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
Lutheran Senior Services at Meramec Bluffs7.3 miBallwin, MO★★★★★5/5
Big Bend Woods Healthcare Center8.0 miValley Park, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
Manchester Rehab and Healthcare Center8.1 miBallwin, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Delmar Gardens of Meramec Valley8.3 miFenton, MO★★★★★5/5
Delmar Gardens on the Green8.6 miChesterfield, MO★★☆☆☆3/5
Maple Grove Wellness & Rehabilitation8.6 miFenton, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Garden View Care Center at Dougherty Ferry8.9 miValley Park, MO★★★★☆5/5
Arbor View Nursing and Rehabilitation9.6 miCedar Hill, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

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.

All facilities in Eureka →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265140.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details