How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Oak Park Care Center
6637 Berthold Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63139 (opens Google Maps) · St. Louis City County · (314) 781-3444· 120 certified beds · avg 82 residents/day · certified since Apr 2, 1990 · 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: MGM HEALTHCARE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 14, 2024
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 30, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.22
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 30, 2024 · F-0693 · triggered by a complaint
The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 30, 2024 · F-0693 · triggered by a complaint
The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Why it matters: Unnecessary or poorly managed feeding tubes can cause serious complications like lung infections and take away the ability to eat normally.
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: May 29, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 38 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. F-0812
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. F-0880
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. F-0550
View all 38 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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Aug 14, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Aug 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Aug 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Aug 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0761 |
| Apr 30, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · from a complaint · F-0693 |
| Jan 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Jan 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint · F-0690 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0677 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0727 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0569 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0688 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0761 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0880 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0919 |
| Jan 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have firmly secured handrails on both sides of its hallways. · F-0924 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0550 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility required residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits or pay privately as a condition of moving in, or failed to tell residents which types of care it does not provide. Both practices are against the rules. · F-0620 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0677 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0758 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · F-0661 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The 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 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0623 |
| Jul 22, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0625 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (17 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 17 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 9 | 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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMissouri averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.22
Missouri average: 3.66
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.14
Missouri average: 0.49
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.72
Missouri average: 3.22
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Missouri avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.22 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 33% in Missouri; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.14 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 4% in Missouri; bottom 1% 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) | 0.15 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 15% in Missouri; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 55.4 | 56.0 | 45.8 | top 46% in Missouri; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 47.8 | 42.9 | — |
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 3.80, RN 0.16, weekend 3.21.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.80 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Oak Park Care Center. 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 / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremias, Baruch | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 05/31/2019 |
| MLS Acquisition LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 05/31/2019 |
| Bienstock, Judah | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2014 |
| Brooks, Danielle | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/19/2021 |
All 4 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain MGM Healthcare — 27 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.
- Quarters at Des Peres, the — Des Peres, MO · overall 1/5
- Sherbrooke Village — Saint Louis, MO · overall 2/5
- Spring Valley Health & Rehabilitation Center — Springfield, MO · overall 2/5
- Springfield Skilled Care Center — Springfield, MO · overall 1/5
- St Sophia Health & Rehabilitation Center — Florissant, MO · overall 1/5
- Sunset Health Care Center — Union, MO · overall 2/5
- Broadway Care & Rehab Center — Muskogee, OK · overall 1/5
- Cleveland Care and Rehab Center — Cleveland, OK · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 26 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you decide when a feeding tube is truly needed, and how do staff care for residents who have one?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "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 your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "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?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Missouri midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 55% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 106 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delhaven Manor | 1.9 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation | 2.1 mi | University City, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bernard Care Center | 2.6 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lutheran Convalescent Home | 2.7 mi | Webster Groves, MO | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Barnes-Jewish Extended Care | 2.7 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| U-City Forest Manor | 3.1 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lansdowne Village | 3.3 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pine Grove Manor | 3.4 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Beauvais Rehab and Healthcare Center | 3.5 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Life Care Center of St Louis | 3.5 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Grand Manor Health Care Center | 3.8 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Normandy Nursing Center | 3.9 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in St. Louis City, MO — 13 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- St Louis Altenheim — Saint Louis, MO · overall —/5
- Blue Circle Rehab and Nursing — Saint Louis, MO · overall 2/5
- Carrie Elligson Gietner Health Care Center — Saint Louis, MO · overall 1/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265427.