MissouriEureka

St Andrew's at Francis Place

400 Summerville Blvd, Eureka, MO 63025 · St. Louis County · 106 certified beds · avg 89 residents/day · certified since May 4, 1983

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.57
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: 2/5

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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Aug 16, 2023 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Sep 14, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 19, 2025 · F-0561 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time.

Why it matters: Losing everyday choices makes residents feel powerless in their own home.

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: Dec 22, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 16, 2023 · F-0697 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.

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 14, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (32)

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

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Nov 19, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint
Aug 29, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · from a complaint
Feb 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Feb 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly notify residents about the balance of money it holds for them, or failed to return those funds when a resident was discharged, evicted, or died.
Feb 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Feb 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Oct 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Sep 19, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Sep 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Mar 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Oct 12, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 12, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Aug 16, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe 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
Aug 16, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Aug 16, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 23, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 23, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 23, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202030D
202372J ▲
2024100E
2025121G ▲

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.573.663.95top 17% in Missouri; top 21% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.330.490.69bottom 33% in Missouri; bottom 13% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.353.223.50top 10% in Missouri; top 15% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.120.330.48bottom 6% in Missouri; bottom 2% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)48.556.045.8top 29% in Missouri; bottom 41% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)66.747.842.9bottom 26% in Missouri; bottom 15% 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 3.64, RN 0.26, weekend 3.46. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
St Andrews Resources for Seniors SystemOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%06/01/2017
Ursuline Sisters Eureka Member CorporationOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2014
Agler, ChristineIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE03/27/2024
Agler, ChristineIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025
Bregenhorn, RitaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2014
Bregenhorn, RitaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2014
Girardi, JosephIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/15/2023
Holman, WilliamIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/04/2022
Maguire, SallyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/10/2023
St Andrews Resources for Seniors SystemOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/07/1968
St Andrews Resources for Seniors SystemOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025
Thaman, RalphIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/29/2019
Ursuline Sisters Eureka Member CorporationOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025
West, CourtneyIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE10/24/2024
West, CourtneyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Marymount Manor1.8 miEureka, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Aegis Health and Rehabilitation4.1 miWildwood, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5
Ellisville Rehabilitation and Nursing5.6 miEllisville, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Pacific Care Center6.0 miPacific, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
Lutheran Senior Services at Meramec Bluffs7.7 miBallwin, MO★★★★★5/5
Delmar Gardens on the Green8.4 miChesterfield, MO★★☆☆☆3/5
Manchester Rehab and Healthcare Center8.4 miBallwin, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Big Bend Woods Healthcare Center8.9 miValley Park, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
Garden View Care Center at Dougherty Ferry9.8 miValley Park, MO★★★★☆5/5
Delmar Gardens of Meramec Valley9.9 miFenton, MO★★★★★5/5
Maple Grove Wellness & Rehabilitation10.1 miFenton, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Arbor View Nursing and Rehabilitation10.5 miCedar Hill, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Eureka →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265195.