MissouriMaysville

Sunset Home

1201 S Polk, Maysville, MO 64469 · De Kalb County · 60 certified beds · avg 28 residents/day · certified since Dec 1, 2002

Part of chain: JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN (56 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.48
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 5, 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: Nov 21, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (34)

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
Nov 5, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jul 23, 2025F · 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.
Jul 23, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 23, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 23, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 23, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Aug 14, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Aug 14, 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 14, 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 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Aug 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Aug 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Nov 3, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Jan 19, 2023F · Potential for harm, 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.
Jan 19, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Jan 19, 2023E · 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.
Jan 19, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 19, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 19, 2023E · 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.
Jan 19, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 19, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (19 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202390F
2024190F
202561G ▲

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)

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.483.663.95top 19% in Missouri; top 24% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.390.490.69bottom 46% in Missouri; bottom 21% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.343.223.50top 11% in Missouri; top 15% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.270.330.48top 49% in Missouri; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)46.256.045.8top 25% in Missouri; bottom 47% 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 3.14, RN 0.27, weekend 3.05. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Lincoln, JamesIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%05/01/2006
Lincoln, JudyIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%05/01/2006
Health Systems, INC.OrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2006
Lincoln, JudyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2006
LTC Management Services LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/13/2015
Moore, BrendaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE04/25/2022

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
Quail Run Health Care Center10.4 miCameron, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
Cameron Nursing Center11.7 miCameron, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 2 closest →

All facilities in Maysville →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265745.