South Hampton Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
4700 Brandon Woods, Columbia, MO 65203 · Boone County · 100 certified beds · avg 78 residents/day · certified since Jul 14, 1995
Part of chain: JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN (56 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$12,735
Fines, last 3 years
3.23
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 17, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Sep 21, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
All citations in the current public record (40)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 27, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint |
| May 27, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Apr 21, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility required residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits or pay privately as a condition of moving in, or failed to tell residents which types of care it does not provide. Both practices are against the rules. · from a complaint |
| Apr 21, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · from a complaint |
| Mar 3, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Mar 3, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Mar 3, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 17, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| May 30, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Apr 8, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Apr 8, 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. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. |
| Apr 8, 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. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. |
| Apr 8, 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. |
| Apr 8, 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. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. |
| Apr 8, 2025 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost. |
| Feb 23, 2024 | 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. |
| Feb 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Feb 23, 2024 | 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. |
| Feb 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Feb 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Feb 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. |
| Feb 23, 2024 | 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. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Feb 17, 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. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 15).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 18 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 7 | 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)
1 fine totaling $12,735, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2025 | Fine | $12,735 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | Payment Denial | 7 days from Jul 2, 2025 |
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) | 3.23 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 34% in Missouri; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.69 | top 50% in Missouri; bottom 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.97 | 3.22 | 3.50 | bottom 40% in Missouri; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 38% in Missouri; bottom 18% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 66.7 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 23% in Missouri; bottom 8% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 55.6 | 47.8 | 42.9 | bottom 40% in Missouri; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
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 3.23, RN 0.42, weekend 2.97. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lincoln, James | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 05/01/2002 |
| Lincoln, Judy | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 05/01/2002 |
| Adams, Shauna | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/25/2022 |
| LTC Management Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/13/2015 |
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 is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Do you accept Medicaid from day one, and will you put in writing that no private payment is required as a condition of admission?"
- "What training do all staff get on dementia care and on spotting and reporting abuse?"
- "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Columbia Manor Health & Rehabilitation | 1.9 mi | Columbia, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bluffs, the | 2.6 mi | Columbia, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Neighborhoods Rehabilitation and Skilled Nursing B | 2.8 mi | Columbia, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lenoir Health Care Center | 2.8 mi | Columbia, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Parkside Manor | 4.7 mi | Columbia, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Columbia Post Acute | 5.0 mi | Columbia, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Villa at Blue Ridge, the | 5.8 mi | Columbia, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265618.