MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
McKnight Place Extended Care has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #99 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing it in the top half of the state, and #15 out of 69 in St. Louis County, meaning only a few local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with reported issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 11 in 2025. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars, which is a strength, but the turnover rate of 62% is average compared to the state average of 57%. While there are no recorded fines, which is a positive sign, there were concerning incidents noted, such as failures in medication management and cleanliness in the kitchen, which could potentially affect resident safety and well-being.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Missouri
- #99/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 62% 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 ○ Average
- Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Missouri. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
15pts above Missouri avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
14 points above Missouri average of 48%
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow acceptable nursing practice when staff left medication in one resident's room who did not have a physician order for se...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 activities of daily living (ADL) were provided ...
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 one resident had physician's orders for a wound...
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
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident with a pressure wound (skin or sof...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 ensure each resident received adequate assistance to prevent accidents when staff transferred one resident improperly (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory services provided were consistent with professional standards of practice for one resident (Resident #15). ...
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident had physician's orders for dialysi...
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 for all controlled drugs with sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation, for two out of two medi...
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 have a system in place to ensure drugs and biologicals in the medication room refrigerator were stored at a proper temperature...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure floors and the ice cream freezer in the kitchen were clean. In addition, the facility failed to ensure proper hair rest...
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 Long-Term Care Ombudsman program or the State Survey Agency hotline number that w...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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 F0557
(Tag F0557)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided care to one resident, (Resident #1) in a manner which maintained his/her dignity when Licensed Practical...
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 assess a resident, (Resident #1) and properly transfer the resident from the floor to the bed, after an unwitnessed fall. The ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan addres...
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, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure antipsychotic medication prescribed on an as-needed (PRN) basis was limited to a 14-day duration in the ab...
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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control standards for hand hygiene for during catheter care to prev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interviews, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #46) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for immunizations was offered a pneumococcal...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed at least every three months for 3 of 3 residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 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
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation (unauthorized, improper, or unlawful use of funds or other property) when staff misappropr...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff transferred residents in a safe manner, by including complete Hoyer lift (assistive hydraulic mechanical device which utilizes...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2020
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
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 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 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 were updated to reflect the...
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 all physician orders were followed by not apply...
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 the manufacturer's recommendations during three...
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 staff followed the facility policy and acceptable professional standards for labeling and discarding insulin vials and ...
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 staff prepared and served food under sanitary conditions, by not changing gloves and washing hands, touching the surface of plates and...
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 follow their policy and acceptable infection control...
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.
- • 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 62% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Mcknight Place Extended Care's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE 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 Mcknight Place Extended Care Staffed?
CMS rates MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 62%, which is 15 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 Mcknight Place Extended Care?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE during 2020 to 2025. These included: 26 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Mcknight Place Extended Care?
MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 70 certified beds and approximately 53 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SAINT LOUIS, Missouri.
How Does Mcknight Place Extended Care Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (62%) 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 Mcknight Place Extended Care?
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 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 facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Mcknight Place Extended Care Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE 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 Mcknight Place Extended Care Stick Around?
Staff turnover at MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE is high. At 62%, the facility is 15 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 Mcknight Place Extended Care Ever Fined?
MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE 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 Mcknight Place Extended Care on Any Federal Watch List?
MCKNIGHT PLACE EXTENDED CARE 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.