1016 W Highway 28, Owensville, MO 65066 (opens Google Maps) · Gasconade County · (573) 437-6877· 131 certified beds · avg 72 residents/day · certified since Mar 11, 1997 · 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★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Apr 2, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
Showing the latest 3 of 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. F-0801
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. F-0812
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. F-0584
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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0812 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0607 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0695 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0700 |
| Nov 26, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Jun 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0658 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0602 |
| Aug 29, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0880 |
| Aug 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0655 |
| Aug 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0656 |
| Aug 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Aug 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0761 |
| Aug 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0688 |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0558 |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0607 |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0656 |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Oct 5, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0677 |
| Oct 5, 2023 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0575 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 10).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
2 fines totaling $20,383.
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.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2025 | Fine | $14,015 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | Fine | $6,368 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| 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 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 3.44, RN 0.40, weekend 2.80.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.44 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Stonebridge Owensville. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - 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 |
Showing 20 of 26 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 6 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| 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 →
CMS records place this facility in Gasconade, MO — 3 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265670.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details