RIVER OAKS CARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
River Oaks Care Center in Steele, Missouri has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. They rank #447 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing them in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Pemiscot County, meaning there is only one local option that performs better. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 68%, significantly higher than the state average of 57%. Additionally, the center has incurred fines totaling $41,389, which is concerning as it is higher than 79% of Missouri facilities. Despite these issues, the facility does have some strengths, such as a commitment to addressing abuse, although there have been serious failures to protect residents from physical and verbal abuse by staff. For example, a Certified Nurse Aide hit one resident with a mug and later shook and threw another resident into bed, with both incidents inadequately investigated. Furthermore, inspections revealed that the facility did not provide a safe and clean environment, which could affect the comfort and well-being of all residents. Overall, families should approach River Oaks Care Center with caution, weighing the serious deficiencies against any positives they may consider.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Missouri
- #447/479
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $41,389 in fines. Lower than most Missouri facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Missouri. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 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
21pts above Missouri avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
20 points above Missouri average of 48%
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
2 deficiencies
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 ensure two residents (Residents #1 and #2) were free from physical ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
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 thoroughly investigate reports of abuse for two residents (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
5 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 and comfortable homelike enviro...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe transfer for two residents (Residents #...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure gastric residual volume (the amount of liquid that drains from the stomach after enteral feeding is administered) was m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement procedures to ensure medications were accurately administered, documented, disposed of and reconciled for one resid...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to use proper infection control techniques for glove use during wound care for two residents (Resident #24 and #56) and during i...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a baseline care plan upon admission with specific interventions for one resident (Resident #2) out of two sampled residents. The ...
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 a safe, secure, and orderly manner by allowing medications to sit at the bedside of one resident (Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 provide a safe, clean and comfortable homelike envir...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2020
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment within 14 days of discontinuation of hospice services for one resident (Resident #55) out of 2 sam...
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 accurately code the 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 F0645
(Tag F0645)
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 resident's with a mental disorder and individuals with intel...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to obtain an order for dialysis (a treatment for kidney failure that ri...
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 incontinent care for two residents (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacy consultant identified an appropriate diagnosis for the use of an antipsychotic (a major tranquilizer) medication for on...
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 interview and record review the facility failed to monitor the drug regimen for unnecessary medications by not ensuring the as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication orders were limited to 14 d...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a representative of the office of the Missouri State Long-Te...
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?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), $41,389 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $41,389 in fines. Higher than 94% of Missouri facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is River Oaks's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RIVER OAKS CARE CENTER 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 River Oaks Staffed?
CMS rates RIVER OAKS CARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 68%, which is 21 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 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at River Oaks?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at RIVER OAKS CARE CENTER during 2020 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 15 with potential for harm, and 1 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 River Oaks?
RIVER OAKS CARE 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 CIRCLE B ENTERPRISES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 63 residents (about 70% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STEELE, Missouri.
How Does River Oaks Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, RIVER OAKS CARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (68%) 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 River Oaks?
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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is River Oaks Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RIVER OAKS CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). 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 River Oaks Stick Around?
Staff turnover at RIVER OAKS CARE CENTER is high. At 68%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. 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 River Oaks Ever Fined?
RIVER OAKS CARE CENTER has been fined $41,389 across 1 penalty action. The Missouri average is $33,493. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is River Oaks on Any Federal Watch List?
RIVER OAKS CARE 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.