DAYBREAK NURSING CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Daybreak Nursing Center in Sikeston, Missouri has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice, though not without some concerns. It ranks #64 out of 479 facilities statewide, placing it in the top half of Missouri nursing homes, and is #3 out of 5 in Scott County, meaning only two local options are better. The facility's performance has been stable, with 5 issues reported in both 2023 and 2024. Staffing is a weak point, earning only 1 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 62%, which is about average for Missouri. However, there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign. Specific incidents noted during inspections included the failure to provide a safe and clean environment, as evidenced by peeling paint and exposed sheetrock in resident rooms. Additionally, some residents did not receive adequate personal hygiene care, and there were issues with medication storage and labeling, which could potentially endanger residents' health. While the facility has strong health inspection scores and no fines, these concerns highlight areas that need improvement.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Missouri
- #64/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- 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 ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Missouri. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
16pts above Missouri avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
14 points above Missouri average of 48%
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
5 deficiencies
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, comfortable, and homelike envi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate personal hygiene for one resident (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 store medications in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice. This deficient practice had the potential t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. These practices had t...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The facility's census was 65.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
5 deficiencies
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 enviro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
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 complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a federally m...
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 interview, observation and record review the facility failed to provide resident rights information on how to formally file a complaint to the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. These...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a dumpster was closed at all times and maintained to keep pests out and/or to keep the garbage contained in the dumpste...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2020
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0624
(Tag F0624)
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 document preparation and orientation for transfer to the hospital f...
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 ensure the accuracy of assessments for one resident (Resident #10) out of 12 sampled residents. The facility's census was 36....
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized comprehensive care plan with specific interventions for two residents (Resident #32 and #87) out of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise and update comprehensive care plans with specific interventions to meet the individual needs of two residents (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician's orders for one resident (Resident #87) out of 12 sampled residents. The facility's census was 36.
Record review of the ...
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.
- • 15 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 Daybreak Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns DAYBREAK NURSING CENTER 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 Daybreak Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates DAYBREAK NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 62%, which is 16 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 Daybreak Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at DAYBREAK NURSING CENTER during 2020 to 2024. These included: 11 with potential for harm and 4 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Daybreak Nursing Center?
DAYBREAK NURSING CENTER 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 PARADIGM SENIOR MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 70 certified beds and approximately 64 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SIKESTON, Missouri.
How Does Daybreak Nursing Center Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, DAYBREAK NURSING CENTER'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 (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Daybreak Nursing Center?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Daybreak Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, DAYBREAK 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 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 Daybreak Nursing Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at DAYBREAK NURSING CENTER is high. At 62%, the facility is 16 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 Daybreak Nursing Center Ever Fined?
DAYBREAK 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 Daybreak Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
DAYBREAK 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.