DELHAVEN MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Delhaven Manor has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Its state rank of #373 out of 479 places it in the bottom half of Missouri nursing homes, and it ranks #8 out of 13 in St. Louis City County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. The facility's performance is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 11 in 2023 to 21 in 2024. Staffing is a major concern here, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 70%, which is significantly above the Missouri average. Additionally, the facility has incurred fines totaling $99,233, which is higher than 82% of Missouri facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. There are critical incidents that raise alarms, such as the failure to monitor a resident who was found unresponsive after not being checked on as required, and the lack of necessary behavioral health care for another resident exhibiting troubling behaviors. While there are some average quality measures, the overall picture indicates serious deficiencies that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Missouri
- #373/479
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 70% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $99,233 in fines. Lower than most Missouri facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 11 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Missouri. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 52 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
24pts above Missouri avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
22 points above Missouri average of 48%
The Ugly 52 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
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 third party liability (TPL) forms were completed within 30 d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 assure the residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who received dialysis (the clinical purification of blood as a substitute for the normal function of the kidney) had docum...
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 observed, three errors occurred resulting in an 8.11% ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a surety bond sufficient to ensure the protection of resident funds. This deficiency had the potential to affect all residents who...
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, the facility failed to place signage and follow indications for enhanced barr...
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 label, date, and cover food in the kitchen. In addition, the facility failed to ensure that kitchen equipment was clean and was in proper wor...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0574
(Tag F0574)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide accessible information on the location of the State Survey Agency hotline number that was readily available to residents in the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
2 deficiencies
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
Deficiency F0839
(Tag F0839)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
See the deficiency cited at F839 under event ID G60Z12.
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff transporting residents in the company vehicle held the pr...
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
Social Worker
(Tag F0850)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
See the deficiency cited at F850 under event ID G60Z12.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis. The facility was licensed an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary behavioral health care services for a resident's ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of record for all controlled drugs with sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for four out of four narc...
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
Deficiency F0839
(Tag F0839)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff transporting residents in the company vehicle held the proper driver license in accordance with Missouri state re...
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
Social Worker
(Tag F0850)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis. The facility was licensed and certified for 156 residents. The current census was 61...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 one resident's right to be free from physical abuse was not ...
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
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 ensure services provided met professional standards of practice by ...
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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of practice by not following the physician orders for Resident #4. The facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
4 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 F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of needs and preferences for one resident when staff failed to assist him/her out of bed when...
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
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 and implement a comprehensive care plan to address the resident's specific needs, which included fall interventions. T...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to identify potential safety hazards for one resident's environment, who staff assessed as being unable to move while in bed, whe...
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
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services to promote one of seven sampled resident's highest possible level of well-being, to assure the emotional and...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
See the deficiency cited at event ID RFBY12.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a w...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident and staff interviews and record reviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide quarterly financial statements to 2 (Resident #2 and Resident #24) of 24 residents who had r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASARRs) were accurately completed upon a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. A review of a Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted Resident #308 on 05/10/2023 and readmitted the resident on 06/20/2023. The resident had diagnoses that included type I diabetes mellitus and...
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 observations, interviews, and facility document and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide treatment to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 (Resident #2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide evidence of adequate monitoring for the effects of and/or responses to psychotropic medi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #44) of 3 residents who received insulin were free from significant medication errors. Specific...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. The staffing sheets were reviewed for th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. A review of a Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted Resident #310 on [DATE], readmitted the resident on [DATE], and disc...
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
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a discharge planning process was in place which addressed discharge goals and needs, including caregiver support, referrals to local...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
4 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to monitor one resident (Resident #1), in accordance with facility s...
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
Safe Transfer
(Tag F0626)
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 their written policy permitting residents to return to the f...
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
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
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 that when the facility anticipates discharge, a resident mus...
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
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
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 to ensure sufficient staff were available to care for the needs of twe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2019
16 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 staff failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS), a fe...
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 26 opportunities, two errors occurred resulting in 7.69% medication err...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0567
(Tag F0567)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident requests for less than $100.00 ($50.00 for Medicaid residents) were honored within the same day by not assurin...
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, the facility failed to ensure general accounting principles were followed, when they failed to provide documentation regarding quarterly resident trust fund state...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain the bond amount for at least one and one-half times the average monthly balance of the residents' personal funds for the last twel...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 care plans reflected residents' current needs b...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 staff obtained diagnoses for antibiotics and ps...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 follow their smoking policy by allowing two resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
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 to provide thorough assessments, orders, monitoring and ongoing commun...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in a sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliatio...
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 puree recipes to ensure food was prepared by methods that conserved nutritive value and flavor, for seven of seven resi...
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 ensure food was dated when placed in the walk-in refrigerator. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who ate at t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
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 to collaborate with hospice in the development of a coordinated plan o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
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 the resident call light system remained functio...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a dignified and homelike dining experience for residents who dined in the second and third floor dining rooms by leaving the plates a...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notice of the facility's bed hold policy to residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $99,233 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 52 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $99,233 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Missouri. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (1/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Delhaven Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns DELHAVEN MANOR 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 Delhaven Manor Staffed?
CMS rates DELHAVEN 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 24 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 71%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Delhaven Manor?
State health inspectors documented 52 deficiencies at DELHAVEN MANOR during 2019 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 47 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Delhaven Manor?
DELHAVEN 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 CIRCLE B ENTERPRISES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 156 certified beds and approximately 80 residents (about 51% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SAINT LOUIS, Missouri.
How Does Delhaven Manor Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, DELHAVEN MANOR's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (70%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Delhaven Manor?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Delhaven Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, DELHAVEN MANOR has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Missouri. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Delhaven Manor Stick Around?
Staff turnover at DELHAVEN MANOR is high. At 70%, the facility is 24 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 71%. 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 Delhaven Manor Ever Fined?
DELHAVEN MANOR has been fined $99,233 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Missouri average of $34,071. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Delhaven Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
DELHAVEN 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.