3038 West Truman Blvd, Jefferson City, MO 65109 (opens Google Maps) · Cole County · (573) 893-3404· 87 certified beds · avg 45 residents/day · certified since Mar 1, 1992 · 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: JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN (56 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 26, 2024 · 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 (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: Jul 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 26, 2024 · F-0609 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: When incidents aren't reported promptly, abusers may continue harming residents and outside authorities can't step in.
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: Jul 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 28, 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 (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 31, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 50 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0656
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 F-0600
The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint F-0585
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Apr 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0600 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint · F-0585 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0609 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint · F-0628 |
| Oct 28, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Oct 28, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| May 6, 2025 | 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 |
| May 6, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0580 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0727 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Jan 17, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0803 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | 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. · F-0658 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 4, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Jun 26, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | 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 · F-0600 |
| Jun 26, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | 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 · F-0609 |
| Jun 26, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Jun 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0610 |
| Sep 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Jan 12, 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 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0607 |
| Jan 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Jan 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2023 | 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. · F-0658 |
| Jan 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Jan 12, 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 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 12, 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 12, 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 12, 2023 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of state agencies and advocacy groups, along with a notice that residents may file complaints with the state survey agency. · F-0575 |
| Jan 12, 2023 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2023 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865 |
| Jan 12, 2023 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888 |
| Aug 2, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 2, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Aug 2, 2019 | 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. · F-0658 |
| Aug 2, 2019 | 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 2, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0803 |
| Aug 2, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0805 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (15 → 11).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 15 | 2 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 5 | 0 | E |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $237,995.
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.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 26, 2024 | Fine | $237,995 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.80 | 3.66 | 3.95 | top 13% in Missouri; top 17% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.26 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 19% in Missouri; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.52 | 3.22 | 3.50 | top 7% in Missouri; top 12% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 49% in Missouri; bottom 25% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 73.1 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 12% in Missouri; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 80.0 | 47.8 | 42.9 | bottom 10% in Missouri; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
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 3.87, RN 0.21, weekend 3.64.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.87 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for River City Living Community. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lincoln, James | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 09/01/2016 |
| Lincoln, Judy | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 09/01/2016 |
| Lincoln, James | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2016 |
| LTC Management Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2016 |
All 4 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain James & Judy Lincoln — 56 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 55 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stonebridge Oak Tree | 0.1 mi | Jefferson City, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Heisinger Bluffs Healthcare Western Campus | 2.5 mi | Jefferson City, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Heisinger Bluffs Rehab and Healthcare Center | 2.8 mi | Jefferson City, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Stonebridge Villa Marie | 2.8 mi | Jefferson City, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Jefferson City Manor Care Center | 2.8 mi | Jefferson City, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Capitol River Wellness & Rehabilitation | 3.0 mi | Jefferson City, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Stonebridge Adams Street | 3.6 mi | Jefferson City, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Stonebridge Westphalia | 16.5 mi | Westphalia, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| California Care Center | 18.1 mi | California, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Riverview Nursing Center | 19.9 mi | Mokane, MO | ★★★★☆ | 5/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265482.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details