1306 Us Highway 63, Queen City, MO 63561 (opens Google Maps) · Schuyler County · (660) 766-2291· 60 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Jul 16, 2007 · 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 →
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.
Showing the latest 3 of 42 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 make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. F-0947
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · F-0947 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 10, 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. · F-0658 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · F-0728 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Sep 10, 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. · F-0689 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | 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 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for residents with a colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy — surgical openings in the abdomen that let waste leave the body into a pouch. These require regular, skilled attention to stay clean and healthy. · F-0691 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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). · F-0628 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Sep 10, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · from a complaint · F-0919 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · F-0728 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 13, 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 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 13, 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 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Dec 13, 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 5, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Jan 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than 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 |
| Jan 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Jan 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Jan 5, 2021 | 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 |
| Jan 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Jan 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 5, 2021 | 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 5, 2021 | 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 |
| Jan 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 5, 2021 | 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 5, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 17).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 13 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 17 | 0 | F |
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 →
0 fines totaling $0, 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.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2023 | Payment Denial | 14 days from Feb 15, 2024 |
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) | 4.92 | 3.66 | 3.95 | top 9% in Missouri; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.63 | 0.49 | 0.69 | top 19% in Missouri; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.04 | 3.22 | 3.50 | top 17% in Missouri; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.48 | top 33% in Missouri; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.3 | 56.0 | 45.8 | top 10% in Missouri; top 32% 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 4.08, RN 0.52, weekend 3.35.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.08 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Schuyler County Nursing Home District. 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 →
Government - County
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schuyler County Nursing Home District | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/29/1976 |
| Barnes, Eric | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/22/2019 |
| Barnes, Eric | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/02/2025 |
| Bushnell, Ryan | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2023 |
| Bushnell, Ryan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2023 |
| Bushnell, Ryan | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2023 |
| Humphrey, Rebecca | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2022 |
| Humphrey, Rebecca | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2022 |
| Humphrey, Rebecca | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2022 |
| McLain, Carol | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2025 |
| McLain, Carol | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2025 |
| Morgan, Terry | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2023 |
| Morgan, Terry | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2023 |
| Oberman, Mike | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2023 |
| Oberman, Mike | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2023 |
| Oberman, Mike | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2023 |
| Russell, Dorene | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/18/2015 |
| Russell, Dorene | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/18/2015 |
All 18 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Twin Pines Adult Care Center | 20.4 mi | Kirksville, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Kirksville Manor Care Center | 20.4 mi | Kirksville, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Bloomfield Care Center | 21.1 mi | Bloomfield, IA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Golden Age Care Center | 23.1 mi | Centerville, IA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Putnam County Care Center | 23.2 mi | Unionville, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Mercyone Centerville Medical Center | 23.6 mi | Centerville,, IA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Centerville Specialty Care | 24.3 mi | Centerville, IA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Knox County Nursing Home District | 30.7 mi | Edina, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| La Plata Nursing Home | 31.4 mi | La Plata, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Milan Health Care Center | 36.0 mi | Milan, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Country Lane Manor | 36.0 mi | Keosauqua, IA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Good Samaritan - Ottumwa | 37.0 mi | Ottumwa, IA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265816.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details