MissouriSaint Louis

McKnight Place Extended Care

Two McKnight Place, Saint Louis, MO 63124 · St. Louis County · 70 certified beds · avg 57 residents/day · certified since Jun 16, 2014

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.75
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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.

All citations in the current public record (25)

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
Apr 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Apr 9, 2025E · 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.
Apr 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Apr 9, 2025D · 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
Apr 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Apr 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Apr 9, 2025D · 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.
Apr 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Apr 9, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss.
May 31, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint
May 31, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Oct 11, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 11, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 11, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 11, 2023D · 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.
Oct 11, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Mar 10, 2020E · 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.
Mar 10, 2020E · 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.
Mar 10, 2020E · 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.
Mar 10, 2020E · 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.
Mar 10, 2020E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Mar 10, 2020E · 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.
Mar 10, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202070E
202350E
202420D
2025110E

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)5.753.663.95top 3% in Missouri; top 5% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.430.490.69top 48% in Missouri; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing5.383.223.50top 3% in Missouri; top 4% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.460.330.48top 11% in Missouri; top 38% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)56.956.045.8bottom 49% in Missouri; bottom 21% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)44.447.842.9top 44% in Missouri; bottom 45% 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 5.22, RN 0.39, weekend 4.88. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Deutsch, CharlesIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest60%02/07/1995
Deutsch, CharlesIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest20%07/24/1998
Leonard, RobertIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest15%02/07/1995
M P Extended Care INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%07/24/1998
Smith, DavidIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest5%02/07/1995
Deutsch, CharlesIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE02/07/1995
Deutsch, CharlesIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/07/1995
Knittel, GlendaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE11/18/2013
Knittel, GlendaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/09/2012
M P Extended Care INCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/07/1995

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
Barnes-Jewish Extended Care1.8 miSaint Louis, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Lutheran Convalescent Home3.7 miWebster Groves, MO★★★★★4/5
U-City Forest Manor3.8 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation4.1 miUniversity City, MO★★☆☆☆3/5
Oak Park Care Center4.3 miSaint Louis, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Country Villa Wellness & Rehabilitation4.5 miCreve Coeur, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Bentleys Extended Care4.8 miOverland, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Bethesda Dilworth4.8 miSaint Louis, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Normandy Nursing Center4.9 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
St Johns Place5.0 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Saint Louis →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265849.