RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Richland Care Center Inc has a Trust Grade of B, which means it is considered a good choice among nursing homes, offering solid care. It ranks #113 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing it in the top half, and it is the best option among two homes in Pulaski County. The facility is on an improving trend, with the number of issues decreasing from six in 2023 to five in 2024. However, staffing is a weakness, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 52%, slightly better than the state average but still concerning. Specific incidents include a serious finding where a resident was inappropriately touched, highlighting issues with abuse prevention, and multiple concerns related to food safety and hygiene practices, which could pose health risks to residents. Despite these weaknesses, the facility has no fines on record and shows good overall health inspection ratings.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Missouri
- #113/479
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 52% 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 14 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Missouri. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- 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%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to complete pre-employment screenings of the Criminal Background Check (CBC), Employee Disqualification List (EDL) verification, and Family ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to prevent the commingling of four current residents (Resident #4, #22, #12, and #14) out of 15 sampled residents personal funds with the op...
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 staff failed to ensure prepared food items were served at a safe...
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 interview and record review, the facility staff failed to develop and implement policies and procedures for the inspect...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, facility staff failed to provide refunds of personal funds to from the facility operating account for nine residents (#294, #290, #296, #288, #295, #287, #286, #2...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record review, facility staff failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse towards one resident (Resident #1) to the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) within th...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record review, facility staff failed to investigate an allegation of rape for one resident (Resident #1). The facility census was 33.
1. Review of the facility's policy titled...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
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 staff failed to use appropriate infection control procedures to...
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 staff failed to store food in a manner to prevent potential contamination and out-dated use. Facility staff failed to wear hair restrain...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0575
(Tag F0575)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, facility staff failed to post the required telephone number for the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) Adult Abuse and Neglect Hotline (used to report ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, facility staff failed to prevent the misappropriation from one resident's (Resident #1) checking account when Certified Medication Technician (CMT) A used the res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to keep one resident, Resident #1, free from sexual abuse when Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2020
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. Facility staff made two medication errors out of 25 opportunities for error ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
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, facility staff failed to store oxygen tubing and nebulizer masks when not in ...
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.
- • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Richland Inc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC 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 Richland Inc Staffed?
CMS rates RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Missouri average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Richland Inc?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 11 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Richland Inc?
RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC 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 86 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 47% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in RICHLAND, Missouri.
How Does Richland Inc Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Richland Inc?
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 Richland Inc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC 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 Richland Inc Stick Around?
RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 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 Richland Inc Ever Fined?
RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC 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 Richland Inc on Any Federal Watch List?
RICHLAND CARE CENTER INC 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.