Stonebridge Owensville
1016 W Highway 28, Owensville, MO 65066 · Gasconade County · 131 certified beds · avg 72 residents/day · certified since Mar 11, 1997
Part of chain: STONEBRIDGE SENIOR LIVING (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5
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)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 26, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Apr 8, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Apr 2, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
All citations in the current public record (27)
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 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Nov 26, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jun 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Aug 29, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Aug 29, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. |
| Aug 29, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Aug 29, 2024 | 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. |
| Aug 29, 2024 | 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. |
| Aug 29, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 5, 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. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of state agencies and advocacy groups, along with a notice that residents may file complaints with the state survey agency. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 10).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 4 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 10 | 0 | F |
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)
2 fines totaling $20,383.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2025 | Fine | $14,015 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | Fine | $6,368 |
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) | 3.29 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 36% in Missouri; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 43% in Missouri; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.68 | 3.22 | 3.50 | bottom 26% in Missouri; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.48 | bottom 22% in Missouri; bottom 9% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 50.8 | 56.0 | 45.8 | top 36% in Missouri; bottom 35% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 37.5 | 47.8 | 42.9 | top 33% in Missouri; top 42% 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 3.44, RN 0.40, weekend 2.80. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lierman, Mark | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/01/2021 |
| 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 |
| Butz, Greg | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/15/2020 |
| Butz, Greg | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/15/2020 |
| Daniels, Chelsea | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/06/2025 |
| Daniels, Chelsea | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/06/2025 |
| Doerhoff, Eric | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Doerhoff, Eric | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/08/2025 |
| Doerhoff, Eric | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Eldercare Management Services INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2015 |
| Eldercare Management Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/13/2025 |
| First Mid Bank & Trust | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2022 |
| Forvis Mazars LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2016 |
| Freemont, Kim | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/1995 |
| Freemont, Kim | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/1995 |
| Isaak, Theresa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2024 |
| Isaak, Theresa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2024 |
| Lierman Family Co Xiv, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2015 |
| Lierman, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | 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?"
- "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gasconade Manor Nursing Home | 2.7 mi | Owensville, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Cuba Manor INC | 19.4 mi | Cuba, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 2 closest →
All facilities in Owensville →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265670.