How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Rocky Ridge Manor
3111 Highway A, Mansfield, MO 65704 (opens Google Maps) · Wright County · (417) 924-8116· 65 certified beds · avg 50 residents/day · certified since May 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 →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN (56 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
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.
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 12, 2024
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 15, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.19
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 15, 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 15, 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): 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: Feb 11, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
View all 26 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 31, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 13, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 13, 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 |
| Apr 30, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Apr 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 15, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Jan 15, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Sep 12, 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 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0558 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0645 |
| Sep 12, 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 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Sep 12, 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. · F-0690 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · F-0699 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | 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 24, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0678 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
Inspection trend by year
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 11 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 3 | 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.
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: 4.19
Missouri average: 3.66
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.64
Missouri average: 0.49
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.69
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) | 4.19 | 3.66 | 3.95 | top 26% in Missouri; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.64 | 0.49 | 0.69 | top 16% in Missouri; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.69 | 3.22 | 3.50 | top 27% in Missouri; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 42% in Missouri; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 51.2 | 56.0 | 45.8 | top 37% in Missouri; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 47.8 | 42.9 | top 26% in Missouri; top 33% 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 3.07, RN 0.47, weekend 2.71.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.07 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Rocky Ridge 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 - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lincoln, James | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 04/01/2009 |
| Lincoln, Judy | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 04/01/2009 |
| Evans, Denise Lynn | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2014 |
| LTC Management Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2009 |
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 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.
- Shepherd of the Hills Living Center — Branson, MO · overall 2/5
- South Hampton Rehabilitation & Health Care Center — Columbia, MO · overall 1/5
- Springfield Villa — Springfield, MO · overall 1/5
- St Francois Manor — Farmington, MO · overall 4/5
- St James Living Center — Saint James, MO · overall 3/5
- Strafford Rehabilitation & Health Care Center — Strafford, MO · overall 1/5
- Sunset Home — Maysville, MO · overall 2/5
- Tipton Oak Manor — Tipton, MO · overall 4/5
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.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How often do you evaluate your nurse aides and what ongoing training do they receive?"
- "Can I see this month's activities calendar, and what do you offer residents who can't leave their rooms?"
- "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 51% 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 (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hartville Care Center | 9.7 mi | Hartville, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Autumn Oaks Caring Center | 13.7 mi | Mountain Grove, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Heart of the Ozarks Healthcare Center | 15.1 mi | Ava, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Glenwood Rehabilitation & Health Care Center | 15.7 mi | Seymour, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265494.