HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Heartland Care and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #82 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 8 in Cape Girardeau County, meaning only two local options are better. However, the facility is facing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 4 in 2023 to 5 in 2024, raising concerns about its overall quality. While staffing is a weakness with a 2/5 star rating and a 55% turnover rate, which is lower than the state average, it does have no fines on record, which is a positive sign. Specific incidents include failure to maintain a clean and safe environment and not following physician orders for several residents, which could lead to serious health risks. Overall, while there are strengths in compliance and a good inspection rating, the facility needs to address its staffing issues and ensure adherence to care plans.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Missouri
- #82/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 55% 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 ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Missouri. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 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%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 follow physician's orders for four residents (Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 ensure physician's orders for oxygen with the use of ...
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 an error rate of less than five percent (%) when medications were administered. There were 28 opportunities with thr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted practices. The facility also failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a system to ensure the resident trust fund account was managed in accordance with proper accounting principles by not maintaining ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 ensure a code status was accurately and consistently documented thr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to control the fly population in the facility. This deficient practice had the pot...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean and comfortable homelike enviro...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and closed record review, the facility failed to ensure a discharge planning process was in place which addressed goals and needs and involved the resident and/or the resident's leg...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2021
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment for one resident (Resident #49) out of 17 sampled residents. The facility's census was 66.
1. Reco...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 ensure the resident and/or the representative received a written su...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan with specific interventions to meet individual needs of two residents (Resident #34 and #43...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise and update comprehensive care plans for four residents (Resident #15, #60, #61, and #63) out of 17 sampled residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services for activities of daily living for one resident (Resident #65) out of 17 sampled residents. The fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store drugs in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice. This deficient practice had the potential to affe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain laboratory services to meet the needs for one resident (Resident #21) out of 17 sampled residents. The facility's census was 66.
Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, compared to the Missouri average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 14 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center?
HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CIRCLE B ENTERPRISES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 102 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 71% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CAPE GIRARDEAU, Missouri.
How Does Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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 below-average staffing rating.
Is Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Heartland Care And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
HEARTLAND CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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.