Normandy Nursing Center
7301 St Charles Rock Rd, Saint Louis, MO 63133 · St. Louis County · 116 certified beds · avg 96 residents/day · certified since Mar 11, 1994 · 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 →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: MGM HEALTHCARE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)
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 · Oct 20, 2023 · 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: Oct 14, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 30, 2026 · 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: Jul 29, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 16, 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: Jun 18, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (40)
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 30, 2026 | ▲ 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 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| May 16, 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 |
| May 16, 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. |
| May 16, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. |
| May 16, 2025 | 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. |
| May 16, 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. |
| May 16, 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. |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not follow the rules about resident work. Residents must never be forced to work for the nursing home, but those who want to work must be allowed to. |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment. |
| May 16, 2025 | 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. |
| May 16, 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 16, 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. |
| May 16, 2025 | 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. |
| May 16, 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. · from a complaint |
| May 16, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. |
| Feb 4, 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 4, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint |
| Feb 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint |
| Jul 26, 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 |
| Jun 11, 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. · from a complaint |
| Dec 15, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Dec 15, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 15, 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 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Dec 15, 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. |
| Dec 15, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Dec 15, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 15, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
| Dec 15, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. |
| Oct 20, 2023 | ▲ 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 |
| Sep 15, 2020 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately. |
| Sep 15, 2020 | 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. |
| Sep 15, 2020 | 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. |
| Sep 15, 2020 | 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. |
| Sep 15, 2020 | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 15).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 12 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 19 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 2 | 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)
1 fine totaling $9,315, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2025 | Payment Denial | 12 days from Jun 20, 2025 |
| Oct 20, 2023 | Fine | $9,315 |
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) | 2.97 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 22% in Missouri; bottom 13% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.20 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 10% in Missouri; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.60 | 3.22 | 3.50 | bottom 24% in Missouri; bottom 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.48 | top 47% in Missouri; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 56.3 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 50% in Missouri; bottom 22% 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 3.22, RN 0.22, weekend 2.83. 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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normandy Investments, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 47% | 09/18/2017 |
| Bienstock, Judah | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2017 |
| Bienstock, Judah | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2017 |
| Wunder, Laura | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/11/2022 |
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?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U-City Forest Manor | 1.1 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation | 1.9 mi | University City, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Amberwood Estates Nursing and Rehabilitation | 2.3 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Heritage Care Center | 2.5 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Delhaven Manor | 2.8 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| St Johns Place | 2.9 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Barnes-Jewish Extended Care | 3.5 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Oak Park Care Center | 3.9 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Oak Knoll Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 4.0 mi | Ferguson, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Hillside Health Care Center | 4.3 mi | Saint Louis, MO | —/5 | abuseSFF | |
| Arbor Hills Care & Rehab Center | 4.4 mi | Ferguson, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Bernard Care Center | 4.5 mi | Saint 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 265578.