ST FRANCOIS MANOR
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
St. Francois Manor has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes, though not exceptional. It ranks #118 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing it in the top half, but is #6 out of 8 in St. Francois County, meaning only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a significant concern, receiving a poor 1/5 rating and a turnover rate of 70%, which is above the state average. Although there have been no fines reported, there are issues with RN coverage, which is less than that of 88% of state facilities. Specific incidents noted during inspections include failures to store food properly, risking cross-contamination and food-borne illness, and issues with trash receptacles not being covered, which could attract pests. Overall, while St. Francois Manor has strengths such as a good Trust Grade and no fines, the staffing issues and recent inspection findings raise serious concerns for families considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Missouri
- #118/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 70% 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 12 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
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
23pts above Missouri avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
22 points above Missouri average of 48%
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0575
(Tag F0575)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to post, in a form and manner accessible to the residents and resident representatives, the required telephone number to the D...
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 two residents (Residents #10 and #57) out of t...
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
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post the nurse staffing data with all the required components in a clear and readable format. The facility's census was 78.
T...
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 of two medication rooms and two medication carts, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and side rails for possible entrapment as part of a regular main...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. These practices had t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
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
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 follow physician's orders regarding medication for one resident (Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a privacy curtain to maintain privacy for two residents (Resident #3 and #10) out of 18 sampled residents. The facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike envi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify, assess and provide supportive interventions for six residents (Resident #3, #17, #27, #33, #41 and #51) with a diag...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement procedures to ensure medications were accurately administered, documented, disposed of and reconciled for one resid...
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. This had the potential to affect al...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This de...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve the highest level of function for one resident (Resident #72) out of 22 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. This ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure garbage dumpsters and trash receptacles were covered for four of four days of observation. The facility census was 71.
...
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.
- • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 70% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is St Francois Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST FRANCOIS MANOR 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 St Francois Manor Staffed?
CMS rates ST FRANCOIS MANOR's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 70%, which is 23 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 80%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at St Francois Manor?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at ST FRANCOIS MANOR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 17 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates St Francois Manor?
ST FRANCOIS MANOR 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 JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 118 certified beds and approximately 76 residents (about 64% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in FARMINGTON, Missouri.
How Does St Francois Manor Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, ST FRANCOIS MANOR's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (70%) 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 St Francois Manor?
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 St Francois Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST FRANCOIS MANOR 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 St Francois Manor Stick Around?
Staff turnover at ST FRANCOIS MANOR is high. At 70%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 80%. 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 St Francois Manor Ever Fined?
ST FRANCOIS MANOR 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 St Francois Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
ST FRANCOIS MANOR 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.