CHATEAU GIRARDEAU
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Chateau Girardeau has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good facility and a solid choice for care. It ranks #56 out of 479 nursing homes in Missouri, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 8 in Cape Girardeau County, meaning there is only one local option that is rated higher. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, as the number of issues identified increased from 5 in 2023 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is an average strength, with a 3 out of 5 rating and a turnover rate of 56%, which is slightly below the state average of 57%. Notably, there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign. On the downside, there have been specific concerns raised during inspections. For example, the facility did not conduct regular inspections of beds and related equipment for numerous residents, posing potential safety risks. Additionally, one resident's catheter drainage bag was not covered appropriately, compromising their dignity. Lastly, the facility failed to notify residents or their representatives in writing about transfers to the hospital for two residents, which raises concerns about communication and care protocols. Overall, while there are strengths at Chateau Girardeau, families should also be aware of the areas needing improvement.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Missouri
- #56/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 36 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Missouri. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Missouri avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
8 points above Missouri average of 48%
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to cover a resident's catheter (tube inserted into the b...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform the resident and/or the legal representative of their bed ho...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours per day, seven days a week. This deficiency had the potential to affect all res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent (%). There were 36 opportunities with two errors made, resulting i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices during catheter (a tube that inserted into the bladder to drain urine) care for o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct at least twelve hours of nurse aide in-service education per year. This affected one Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) (CNA F) out of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative in writing of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform the resident and family and/or legal representative of their...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to document a complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MD...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess residents for the use of bed rails prior to in...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, side rails, and enabler bars as part of a regular maintenance pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for three residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices, including hand hygiene, appropriately changing gloves, and sanitizing equipment after us...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
- • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Chateau Girardeau's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CHATEAU GIRARDEAU an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Missouri, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Chateau Girardeau Staffed?
CMS rates CHATEAU GIRARDEAU's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Chateau Girardeau?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at CHATEAU GIRARDEAU during 2022 to 2025. These included: 14 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Chateau Girardeau?
CHATEAU GIRARDEAU is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 75 certified beds and approximately 50 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CAPE GIRARDEAU, Missouri.
How Does Chateau Girardeau Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, CHATEAU GIRARDEAU's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Chateau Girardeau?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Chateau Girardeau Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CHATEAU GIRARDEAU has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Missouri. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Chateau Girardeau Stick Around?
Staff turnover at CHATEAU GIRARDEAU is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Chateau Girardeau Ever Fined?
CHATEAU GIRARDEAU has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Chateau Girardeau on Any Federal Watch List?
CHATEAU GIRARDEAU is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.