Schuyler County Nursing Home District

Name: Schuyler County Nursing Home District
Address: 1306 US HIGHWAY 63, Queen City, MO, 63561, US
Telephone: 6607662291

1306 Us Highway 63, Queen City, MO 63561 · Schuyler County · 60 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Jul 16, 2007

2/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

4.92

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (42)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Sep 10, 2025	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Sep 10, 2025	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Sep 10, 2025	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Sep 10, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Sep 10, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Sep 10, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Sep 10, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Sep 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Sep 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Sep 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Sep 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Sep 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Sep 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Sep 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Sep 10, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	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).
Sep 10, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Sep 10, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	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.
Dec 13, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Dec 13, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Dec 13, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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
Dec 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Dec 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Dec 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Dec 13, 2023	C · Minimal risk, facility-wide	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.
Jan 5, 2021	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 5, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 17).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2021	12	F
2023	13	F
2025	17	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.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

0 fines totaling $0, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Dec 13, 2023	Payment Denial	14 days from Feb 15, 2024

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

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 (%)	0.0	47.8	42.9	—

Hours are per resident per day, 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. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Who owns this facility

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

Questions to ask on your visit

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

"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?"
"What specific training do your nurse aides complete in dementia care and abuse prevention, and how often is it refreshed?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
"What training and competency checks do your nurse aides go through, and how do you keep their skills current?"
"What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

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

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Queen City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265816.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Schuyler County Nursing Home District

1306 Us Highway 63, Queen City, MO 63561 · 6607662291

Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 1/5· Fines (3y): $0

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "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?"
☐ "What specific training do your nurse aides complete in dementia care and abuse prevention, and how often is it refreshed?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
☐ "What training and competency checks do your nurse aides go through, and how do you keep their skills current?"
☐ "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 265816 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)