Stonebridge Maryland Heights
2963 Doddridge Avenue, Maryland Heights, MO 63043 · St. Louis County · 223 certified beds · avg 142 residents/day · certified since Feb 10, 1992
Part of chain: STONEBRIDGE SENIOR LIVING (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.53
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.
All citations in the current public record (46)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 14, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint |
| Aug 20, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 16, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 16, 2024 | 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 |
| Sep 15, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint |
| Sep 15, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 15, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. |
| Sep 15, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 15, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Sep 15, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 15, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 15, 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 15, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Sep 15, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. |
| Dec 23, 2019 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 14).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 17 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 1 | 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)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
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) | 3.53 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 46% in Missouri; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 43% in Missouri; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.95 | 3.22 | 3.50 | bottom 40% in Missouri; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.12 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 8% in Missouri; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 66.1 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 24% in Missouri; bottom 9% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 30.0 | 47.8 | 42.9 | top 24% in Missouri; top 29% 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 3.50, RN 0.38, weekend 2.93. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lierman, Mark | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/12/1996 |
| Bridge Rehabilitation INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2024 |
| Bridge Rehabilitation INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/22/2025 |
| Busey Corporation | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/10/2023 |
| Butz, Greg | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/15/2020 |
| Clark, Benita | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2022 |
| Clark, Benita | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2022 |
| Doerhoff, Eric | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Doerhoff, Eric | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Eldercare Management Services INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/29/1999 |
| Eldercare Management Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/22/2025 |
| Forvis Mazars LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2016 |
| Lierman Family Partnership | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/10/1992 |
| Lierman, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/12/1996 |
| Lierman, Mark | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/12/1996 |
| Lierman, Mark | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/12/1996 |
| Miller, Beth | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/17/2023 |
| Razzaque, Naveed | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2003 |
| Razzaque, Naveed | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2003 |
| Thayer, Jeanne | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
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?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How are residents and families included in care plan meetings, and how often do those meetings happen?"
- "If you manage my family member's personal funds, how often will we get statements and how quickly are funds returned?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parkwood Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 0.6 mi | Maryland Heights, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| NHC Healthcare, Maryland Heights | 0.8 mi | Maryland Heights, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| River Crossing Rehab and Healthcare Center | 1.0 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Avenir at Mark Twain | 1.1 mi | Bridgeton, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| SSM Health Depaul Hospital - Anna House | 1.5 mi | Bridgeton, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Bridgeton | 2.5 mi | Bridgeton, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bentleys Extended Care | 2.7 mi | Overland, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Creve Coeur Manor | 3.9 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Country Villa Wellness & Rehabilitation | 4.1 mi | Creve Coeur, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| St Johns Place | 4.7 mi | Saint Louis, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lewis & Clark Gardens | 4.8 mi | Saint Charles, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Laurel Meadows Wellness & Rehabilitation | 4.8 mi | Saint Charles, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
All facilities in Maryland Heights →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265486.