Maryville Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
524 North Laura, Maryville, MO 64468 · Nodaway County · 105 certified beds · avg 43 residents/day · certified since Mar 1, 1989
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN (56 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5
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, one-off · Dec 16, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.
Corrected: Dec 11, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 11, 2026 · 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 (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Apr 20, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 17, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 2, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Sep 1, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 7, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
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: May 1, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
All citations in the current public record (45)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint |
| Jun 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint |
| Jun 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| May 27, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint |
| Mar 11, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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 11, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint |
| Nov 17, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 2, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint |
| Jun 19, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Jun 19, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not properly protect the personal money residents deposited with it for safekeeping. |
| Jun 19, 2025 | 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. |
| Jun 19, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jun 19, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jun 19, 2025 | 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. |
| May 7, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint |
| Mar 11, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint |
| Dec 16, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint |
| Jun 12, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. |
| Jun 12, 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. |
| Jun 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Nov 30, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 30, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 30, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Oct 14, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 14, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Oct 14, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 14, 2022 | 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 14, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (20 → 6).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 21 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 10 | 3 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
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)
3 fines totaling $86,912.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2026 | Fine | $64,575 |
| May 7, 2025 | Fine | $11,492 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | Fine | $10,845 |
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) | 3.05 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 25% in Missouri; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.39 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 45% in Missouri; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.72 | 3.22 | 3.50 | bottom 28% in Missouri; bottom 17% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.48 | top 46% in Missouri; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 68.9 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 17% in Missouri; bottom 7% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 54.5 | 47.8 | 42.9 | bottom 42% in Missouri; bottom 29% 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 3.19, RN 0.41, weekend 2.85. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 1/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lincoln, James | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 09/01/2016 |
| Lincoln, Judy | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 09/01/2016 |
| Lincoln, James | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2016 |
| LTC Management Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2016 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you train staff to treat residents with dignity, and how do you protect residents' personal belongings?"
- "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village Care Center INC | 0.6 mi | Maryville, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Parkdale Manor Health & Rehabilitation | 1.6 mi | Maryville, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Nodaway Healthcare | 5.3 mi | Maryville, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pine View Manor INC | 19.7 mi | Stanberry, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265354.