Missouri ›Jefferson City

Stonebridge Adams Street

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

1024 Adams Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101 (opens Google Maps) · Cole County · (573) 635-1320· 120 certified beds · avg 49 residents/day · certified since Mar 10, 2007 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: STONEBRIDGE SENIOR LIVING (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 4, 2024
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Feb 15, 2024
$38,656
Fines, last 3 years
3.15
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →

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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 15, 2024 · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Mar 18, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 41 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    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 F-0689

  2. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    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 F-0880

  3. F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread

    The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint F-0725

View all 41 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Mar 19, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Mar 19, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0880
Dec 8, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint · F-0725
Dec 8, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0693
Aug 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0695
Aug 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0700
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0727
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · F-0800
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Dec 4, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0880
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0656
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0759
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0761
Dec 4, 2024C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0623
Dec 4, 2024C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625
Dec 4, 2024C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0732
Dec 4, 2024C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801
Oct 17, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0580
Oct 17, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0658
Jul 1, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0658
Feb 15, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Nov 17, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Nov 17, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0656
Nov 17, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Nov 17, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Nov 17, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0761
Nov 17, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0550
Nov 17, 2023C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882
Aug 9, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Jun 3, 2022F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not properly protect the personal money residents deposited with it for safekeeping. · F-0570
Jun 3, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0656
Jun 3, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0657
Jun 3, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Jun 3, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0690
Jun 3, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0700
Jun 3, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Jun 3, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0758
Jun 3, 2022C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost. · F-0572

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 14).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 18
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202290F
202380F
2024181G ▲
202540F
202620D

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $38,656.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Dec 4, 2024Fine$38,656

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityMissouri averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.15
Missouri average: 3.66
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.69
Missouri average: 0.49
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.42
Missouri average: 3.22
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.153.663.95bottom 29% in Missouri; bottom 19% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.690.490.69top 13% in Missouri; top 37% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.423.223.50bottom 18% in Missouri; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.310.330.48top 41% in Missouri; bottom 33% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)72.056.045.8bottom 13% in Missouri; bottom 5% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)75.047.842.9bottom 15% in Missouri; bottom 9% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 3.72, RN 0.81, weekend 2.85.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.72 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Stonebridge Adams Street. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Lierman, MarkIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%11/01/2021
Bridge Rehabilitation INCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2024
Bridge Rehabilitation INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/22/2025
Ciegel, StevenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2022
Ciegel, StevenIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2022
Doerhoff, EricIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Doerhoff, EricIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Eldercare Management Services INCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/17/2010
Eldercare Management Services INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/22/2025
Enterprise Bank & TrustOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2008
Forvis Mazars LLPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/25/2016
Knight, KaraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2018
Knight, KaraIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2018
Lierman Family Co X, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2011
Lierman, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Lierman, MarkIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Lierman, MarkIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Miller, BethIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/17/2023
Thayer, JeanneIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Thayer, JeanneIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021

Showing 20 of 25 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 5 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Stonebridge Senior Living — 12 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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?"
  • "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
  • "How do you decide when a feeding tube is truly needed, and how do staff care for residents who have one?"
  • "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
  • "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
  • "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
  • "What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Missouri midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 72% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 25 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Stonebridge Villa Marie0.8 miJefferson City, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
Capitol River Wellness & Rehabilitation0.8 miJefferson City, MO★★☆☆☆3/5
Heisinger Bluffs Rehab and Healthcare Center1.4 miJefferson City, MO★★★★☆4/5
Heisinger Bluffs Healthcare Western Campus1.6 miJefferson City, MO★★★★★5/5
Jefferson City Manor Care Center1.8 miJefferson City, MO★☆☆☆☆3/5
River City Living Community3.6 miJefferson City, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5
Stonebridge Oak Tree3.6 miJefferson City, MO★★★★☆4/5
Stonebridge Westphalia13.0 miWestphalia, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Riverview Nursing Center17.9 miMokane, MO★★★★☆5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Jefferson City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265810.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details