LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided, which is among the poorest ratings available. In Missouri, the facility ranks #415 out of 479, placing it in the bottom half, and it is the lowest-ranked nursing home in Marion County. While the facility is showing some improvement-reducing serious issues from 11 in 2023 to 7 in 2025-there are still 27 deficiencies noted, including three serious incidents where residents were harmed due to inadequate oversight. Staffing is a potential strength, with a 0% turnover rate and no fines recorded, but the overall staffing rating is poor, which may impact the quality of care. Specific incidents include a resident suffering a leg laceration during a manual transfer due to equipment failure and another resident who experienced a fracture after falling out of bed when fall prevention measures were not properly implemented.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Missouri
- #415/479
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 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
Below Missouri average (2.5)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Oct 2025
3 deficiencies
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide oversight and prevent injury for two residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse aides received the required 12 hours of in-service education annually. The facility census was 55. The facility was not able t...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources were necessary to care for residents competently during both day...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to document and implement fall interventions to prevent falls for one resident (Resident #1), in a review of five sampled reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify one resident's (Resident #2) physician timely of hip pain following a fall on 05/21/25. The resident complained of hip pain and rece...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2025
2 deficiencies
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
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the state survey agency for one resident (Resident #1), who suffered a fractured humeral shaft (new f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
10 deficiencies
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 conduct ongoing assessments of bed rails per facility...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure ceiling vents were maintained free of a buildup of dust and de...
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 failed to check the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hire for five of ten employees reviewed, to ensure they did not have a Federal Indicator (the indivi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 nursing staff performed acceptable infection c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow standards of practice and ensure proper administration of physician ordered insulin (medication used to treat diabetes)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
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 food items at a safe and appetizing temperatu...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete inspection of bed frames, mattresses, and be...
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 ensure dietary equipment was free of an accumulation of grease, oil, dust and debris. Staff failed to ensure the facility's ice machine was c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control techniques were follow...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of bed hold with required information to t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
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
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
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 readmit one resident (Resident # 1), in a review of five sampled re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2020
2 deficiencies
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 failed to obtain Nurse Aide (NA) registry/background screenings for four new employees, in a review of six newly hired employees prior to employment ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items were labeled, dated or discarded whe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2018
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 incontinence care with a urinary catheter (a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop policies and procedures for monthly medication regimen reviews that included time frames for the different steps in the medication ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 four residents (Residents #2, #23, #35, and #4...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the recipes in order to prepare food to conserve flavor for residents on pureed and mechanical soft diets. The facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure the policy for pneumococcal vaccinations was consistent with th...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident and/or residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident or resident representative in writing of the be...
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 fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade F (25/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Missouri, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER during 2018 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm, 20 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center?
LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER 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 64 certified beds and approximately 54 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HANNIBAL, Missouri.
How Does Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing 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 Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Stick Around?
LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Ever Fined?
LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING 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 Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING 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.