DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Delmar Gardens of Creve Coeur has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #65 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing it in the top half, and #9 out of 69 in St. Louis County, meaning there are only eight local options that are better. The facility's trend is stable, with two issues reported in both 2024 and 2025, which suggests they are maintaining a consistent level of care. Staffing is a notable concern, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 60%, which is average for Missouri. However, there is less RN coverage than 97% of state facilities, potentially compromising care quality. While there are no fines on record, which reflects positively on the facility, there are significant areas for improvement. For instance, a serious incident involved improper transfers of two residents using a Hoyer lift, resulting in one needing hospitalization and surgery. Additionally, there have been concerns about cleanliness, with reports of mold and unclean floors in resident rooms, indicating that maintenance and hygiene may not be adequately prioritized. Overall, families should weigh the strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Missouri
- #65/479
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% 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 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Missouri. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 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
13pts above Missouri avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above Missouri average of 48%
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
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 ensure staff treated residents with dignity and respec...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to keep residents free from accidents when staff failed to use safe,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
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 provide care that met professional standards of qualit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
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 maintain all areas of the facility in a safe, function...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressur...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their infection control policy when staff failed to complete the second step of employee tuberculosis (TB, a potentially serious inf...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure housekeeping services were provided to maintain clean floors in resident rooms on 2 (Unit 200 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2019
6 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect, dignity and care in a manner and environment which promoted enhancement of his/her quality o...
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 develop and implement a baseline care plan consistent with the resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 that a resident (Resident #259) received treatm...
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 ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. Out of 37 opportunities, two errors occurred resulting in a 5.41% medication e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure opened medications were labeled with residents' names and date opened. The facility also failed to discard outdated, op...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the cleanliness of the vent in the dishwasher area, which could blow air on clean dishes. The facility also failed to store dishes i...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2018
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 ensure residents' rights and dignity by failing to cov...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 ensure residents' right to be free from abuse were not...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility's abuse and neglect policies and procedures failed to identify when, how and by whom determinations of capacity to consent to sexual contact will be ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the most recent survey results in a place readily accessible to residents, family members and the public. Furthermore, the facility fail...
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 fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR 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 Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur Staffed?
CMS rates DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR during 2018 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 15 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur?
DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR 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 DELMAR GARDENS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 148 certified beds and approximately 91 residents (about 61% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CREVE COEUR, Missouri.
How Does Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR 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 Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur Stick Around?
Staff turnover at DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. 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 Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur Ever Fined?
DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR 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 Delmar Gardens Of Creve Coeur on Any Federal Watch List?
DELMAR GARDENS OF CREVE COEUR 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.