RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Riverview at the Park Care and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and ranks in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It is ranked #293 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing it in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Ste. Genevieve County, indicating that only one local option is better. The facility's situation is improving, as the number of issues reported decreased from 12 in 2023 to 6 in 2024. Staffing is a significant concern here, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 53%, which is high compared to the Missouri average of 57%. While there have been no fines reported, which is a positive aspect, RN coverage is below average, with less RN presence than 80% of facilities in the state, raising concerns about adequate oversight. Specific incidents noted by inspectors include a failure to implement an effective infection control program related to Legionella, which could pose serious health risks to residents, and an ineffective pest control program that affected several residents. Additionally, the facility did not obtain proper physician orders for bed rails for some residents, which could lead to dangerous entrapment situations. Overall, while there are strengths in the lack of fines and some improvement in issues, families should weigh these against staffing concerns and specific health and safety incidents.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Missouri
- #293/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 53% 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
- 22 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 average (2.5)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Missouri avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Jul 2024
6 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
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Nurse Aide (NA) Registry checks were completed prior to the employment start date of four employees out of a sample of ten empl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
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 inform the resident and/or resident's representative, in writing, o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0728
(Tag F0728)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three nurse aides (NAs) completed a nurse aide training program within four months of his/her employment at the facility. The facili...
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 F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. This practice affected five residents (Resident #13, #26, #51, #71, and #201) out of 20 sampled r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN: Medicare requires SN...
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, and comfortable homelike envir...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to document an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated assessment) for two residents (Resident #8 and #83) out of 19...
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 and record review, the facility failed to provide a Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR, a federally mandated preliminary assessment to determine whether a re...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement care plans for three residents (Residents #8, #13, and #36) out of 19 sampled residents. The facility's...
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 follow physician's orders for supplemental oxygen therapy for two residents (Residents #8 and #83) out of 19 sampled resident...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to show adequate indication for the use of psychotropic medication for two residents (Residents #36 and #78) out of 19 sampled r...
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 medications in the facility were not expired in one of three medication storage rooms and one of three medication cart...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to control the fly population in the facility. This affected 11 residents (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
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 obtain physician's orders for bed rails and failed to...
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, facility staff failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, matt...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement an infection control program and a risk management process specific to Legionella disease (a serious type of pneumo...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2021
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide appropriate care for a gastrostomy tube (G-tube: a tube placed in the stomach for nutrition and medication administration, also know...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0865
(Tag F0865)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI: a program to improve processes for the delivery of health care and quality of l...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee in place with the minimum required members which meets at least quarterly to develo...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC: a notification with information regarding ...
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 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.
- • 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent Staffed?
CMS rates RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Missouri average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT during 2021 to 2024. These included: 21 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent?
RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT 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 SHAFIQ MALIK, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 107 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SAINTE GENEVIEVE, Missouri.
How Does Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent?
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 Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT 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 2-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 Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent Stick Around?
RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 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 Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent Ever Fined?
RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT 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 Riverview At The Park Care And Rehabilitation Cent on Any Federal Watch List?
RIVERVIEW AT THE PARK CARE AND REHABILITATION CENT 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.