Missouri ›Saint Louis

Pine Grove Manor

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

4359 Taft Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63116 (opens Google Maps) · St. Louis City County · (314) 752-2022· 77 certified beds · avg 52 residents/day · certified since May 1, 2009 · 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: OPCO SKILLED MANAGEMENT (66 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 13, 2026
4
Serious findings on record
most recent Jul 1, 2026
$31,665
Fines, last 3 years
2.68
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Dec 22, 2025 · F-0678 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.

Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Dec 23, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Apr 3, 2024 · F-0689

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 (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: May 7, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 1, 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): 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.

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 13, 2023 · 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): 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: Oct 3, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual harm, isolated

    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 F-0689

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    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 F-0658

  3. 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. · from a complaint F-0677

View all 35 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jul 1, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Mar 13, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0658
Mar 13, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0677
Mar 13, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint · F-0679
Mar 13, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Mar 13, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 13, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0686
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0693
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0695
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 13, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · from a complaint · F-0883
Dec 22, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint · F-0678
Dec 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Dec 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604
Dec 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 3, 2024▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Apr 3, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Apr 3, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials. · F-0680
Apr 3, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 3, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 3, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Nov 29, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Oct 13, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Jun 10, 2022F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jun 10, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Jun 10, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · F-0678
Jun 10, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Jun 10, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames. · F-0909
Jun 10, 2022C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not properly protect the personal money residents deposited with it for safekeeping. · F-0570

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 16).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 1

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202260F
202321G ▲
202461K ▲
202541J ▲
2026171G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

2 fines totaling $31,665, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Dec 22, 2025Fine$9,510
Apr 3, 2024Fine$22,155
Apr 3, 2024Payment Denial13 days from May 15, 2024

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityMissouri averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 2.68
Missouri average: 3.66
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.32
Missouri average: 0.49
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.39
Missouri average: 3.22
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)2.683.663.95bottom 15% in Missouri; bottom 6% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.320.490.69bottom 30% in Missouri; bottom 12% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.393.223.50bottom 17% in Missouri; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.240.330.48bottom 41% in Missouri; bottom 19% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)—56.045.8—
RN turnover (%)—47.842.9—

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 3.14, RN 0.37, weekend 2.79.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.14 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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pine Grove Manor. 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Amber HC TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Arches Healthcare LLCOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
First Sweetzer Holdings LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Garetz, DavidIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Gurwitz, SolomonIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2024
Kaplan, EstherIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Lucent Advisors LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Rimpau Holdings TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Sasem Investments LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
4359 Taft Ave Mo LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Bankwell BankOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Brencick, MarkIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Brencick, MarkIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/11/2025
Davidovich, NivIndividualTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Esdov Investments LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/11/2025
Forvis Mazars LLPOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2023
Forvis Mazars LLPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2023
Gao, ShawnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Gao, ShawnIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/11/2025
Garetz, DavidIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025

Showing 20 of 34 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 14 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Opco Skilled Management — 66 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 65 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "Are staff on every shift trained and certified in CPR, and how do they know each resident's resuscitation wishes?"
  • "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?"
  • "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
  • "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
  • "Can I see this month's activities calendar, and what do you offer residents who can't leave their rooms?"
  • "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
  • "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"

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?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 34 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 104 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Lansdowne Village0.2 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Magnolia Wellness Center1.4 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Beauvais Rehab and Healthcare Center2.0 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Carrie Elligson Gietner Health Care Center2.1 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5
St Louis Altenheim2.2 miSaint Louis, MO—/5
Life Care Center of St Louis3.2 miSaint Louis, MO★★★★☆3/5
Mary, Queen and Mother Center3.4 miShrewsbury, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
Oak Park Care Center3.4 miSaint Louis, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Lutheran Convalescent Home3.6 miWebster Groves, MO★★★★★4/5
Lemay Nursing3.7 miSaint Louis, MO★★☆☆☆3/5
Bernard Care Center3.7 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Sherbrooke Village4.2 miSaint Louis, MO★★☆☆☆2/5

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.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Saint Louis →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265828.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details