MissouriSteelville

Steelville Senior Living

311 N Spring Street, Steelville, MO 65565 · Crawford County · 72 certified beds · avg 49 residents/day · certified since Jan 17, 2018

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$87,749
Fines, last 3 years
3.38
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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Mar 14, 2024 · F-0880 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.

Severity (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: Apr 19, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (22)

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
Apr 23, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Apr 23, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Apr 23, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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 23, 2026E · 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.
Apr 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Apr 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 23, 2026E · 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.
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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).
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, 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
Apr 23, 2026D · 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.
Apr 23, 2026C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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.
May 19, 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. · from a complaint
Aug 16, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Aug 16, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Aug 16, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Aug 16, 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.
Aug 16, 2024D · 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.
Aug 16, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs.
Mar 14, 2024▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wideThe 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 5, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
May 5, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
May 5, 2023E · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202330F
202471L ▲
202510E
2026110F

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 $87,749.

DateTypeAmount / length
Mar 14, 2024Fine$87,749

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)3.383.663.95bottom 39% in Missouri; bottom 30% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.220.490.69bottom 12% in Missouri; bottom 4% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.113.223.50bottom 48% in Missouri; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.170.330.48bottom 20% in Missouri; bottom 8% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)68.456.045.8bottom 21% in Missouri; bottom 7% in the U.S.
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 3.31, RN 0.22, weekend 3.04. 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 - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Scheulen, BenjaminIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE08/30/2017
Aubuchon, KimberlyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2025
Aubuchon, KimberlyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/04/2025
Juckette Management Services Senior Living, INC.OrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2023
Lebedowicz, BohdanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2025
Lebedowicz, BohdanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2025
Scheulen, BenjaminIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2023
Scheulen, BenjaminIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2023
Steelville Senior Living, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/30/2017

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
Cuba Manor INC7.3 miCuba, MO★★★★☆4/5
St James Living Center14.0 miSaint James, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Meramec Nursing18.7 miSullivan, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
Life Care Center of Sullivan19.0 miSullivan, MO★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Steelville →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265866.