Milan Health Care Center
52435 Infirmary Road, Milan, MO 63556 · Sullivan County · 100 certified beds · avg 95 residents/day · certified since May 4, 1984
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: RELIANT CARE MANAGEMENT (34 facilities, chain avg rating 1.2★)
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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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 · Jan 22, 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 (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: Feb 20, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 30, 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 30, 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 |
| Jul 10, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. · from a complaint |
| Jul 10, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| May 23, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. · from a complaint |
| May 23, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| May 23, 2025 | D · Potential for 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 5, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 5, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Mar 5, 2025 | 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. |
| Jan 22, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Oct 2, 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. · from a complaint |
| May 7, 2024 | D · Potential for 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 |
| May 7, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 28, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Jun 13, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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 13, 2023 | 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. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | 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 13, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | 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 13, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, 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. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 13, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | 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. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | 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. |
| Jun 13, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. |
| Oct 9, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility hired someone with an official finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft against them. Facilities are not allowed to employ people with such findings. |
| Oct 9, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. |
| Oct 9, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (18 → 11).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 19 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 18 | 2 | J ▲ |
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 $49,897.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2025 | Fine | $49,897 |
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) | 1.79 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 3% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.17 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 7% in Missouri; bottom 2% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 1.59 | 3.22 | 3.50 | bottom 3% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.13 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 9% in Missouri; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 58.8 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 44% in Missouri; bottom 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 47.8 | 42.9 | — |
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 2.01, RN 0.19, weekend 1.79. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliant Care Investors INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/28/2011 |
| Destefane, Richard | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/28/2011 |
| Jones, Delynna | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/29/2017 |
| Reliant Care Management Company LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/28/2011 |
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?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "If my family member's health suddenly changes, how quickly do you reassess them and update their care?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Putnam County Care Center | 21.3 mi | Unionville, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Eastview Manor Care Center | 25.8 mi | Trenton, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Sunnyview Nursing Home & Apartments | 25.9 mi | Trenton, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Brookfield Health Care Center | 27.4 mi | Brookfield, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Pearl's II Eden for Elders | 27.9 mi | Princeton, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Brookfield | 28.4 mi | Brookfield, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Kirksville Manor Care Center | 29.9 mi | Kirksville, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Twin Pines Adult Care Center | 30.4 mi | Kirksville, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Grand River Health Care | 34.3 mi | Chillicothe, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Morningside Center | 34.4 mi | Chillicothe, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Livingston Manor Care Center | 34.5 mi | Chillicothe, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Stonebridge Chillicothe | 34.7 mi | Chillicothe, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265238.