Missouri ›Saint Louis

St Johns Place

3333 Brown Road, Saint Louis, MO 63114 · St. Louis County · 94 certified beds · avg 57 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 2002

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
0.00
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 (36)

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
Dec 9, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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). · from a complaint
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · from a complaint
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 9, 2025D · 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
Dec 9, 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. · from a complaint
Aug 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Jul 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jul 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Aug 27, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Mar 20, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Mar 20, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not properly protect the personal money residents deposited with it for safekeeping.
Mar 20, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately.
Mar 20, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Mar 20, 2024E · 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.
Mar 20, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 20, 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
Mar 20, 2024D · Potential for 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.
Mar 20, 2024D · 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.
Mar 20, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 20, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Dec 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Dec 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint
Dec 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · from a complaint
Mar 3, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offWhen a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (11 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202280E
202330E
2024120F
2025130F

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)0.003.663.95—
Registered Nurse hours0.000.490.69—
Weekend total nurse staffing0.003.223.50—
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.000.330.48—
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.056.045.8—
RN turnover (%)0.047.842.9—

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 0.00, RN 0.00, weekend 0.00. 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: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bentley, David JoeIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%12/05/2003
Bentley, David JoeIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE12/05/2003
Bentley, RyanIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/05/2003
Bentley, RyanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/05/2003

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
Heritage Care Center1.9 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Bentleys Extended Care2.1 miOverland, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Normandy Nursing Center2.9 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Amberwood Estates Nursing and Rehabilitation3.0 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
U-City Forest Manor3.2 miSaint Louis, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Oak Knoll Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center3.3 miFerguson, MO★★☆☆☆3/5
NHC Healthcare, Maryland Heights3.9 miMaryland Heights, MO★★★★☆4/5
Arbor Hills Care & Rehab Center4.0 miFerguson, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5
Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation4.3 miUniversity City, MO★★☆☆☆3/5
River Crossing Rehab and Healthcare Center4.4 miSaint Louis, MO★★☆☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Saint Louis →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265733.