MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care being provided. It ranks #424 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #61 out of 69 in St. Louis County, meaning there are very few local options that are worse. While the facility has shown some improvement in reducing issues from 14 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, it still has serious problems, including a concerning $88,377 in fines which is higher than 84% of other Missouri facilities. Staffing is a positive aspect, with a 0% turnover rate, suggesting that employees are stable and knowledgeable, but the overall staffing rating is only 1 out of 5 stars. Specific incidents include a failure to ensure proper documentation of residents' resuscitation wishes and a critical incident where a resident was physically and verbally abused by a staff member, highlighting both a lack of oversight and safety concerns within the facility.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Missouri
- #424/479
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $88,377 in fines. Higher than 87% of Missouri facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- 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
- 33 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
Below Missouri average (2.5)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 33 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services to ensure one resident (Resident #1) was free from accident hazards when a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) failed to s...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
11 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Se...
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 observations, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide services based on ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable for three of four (Residents (R) 3, R12, and R24) reviewed for food pal...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to promote a dignified dining experience by serving beverages in disposable cups, and food on disposable...
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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and comfortable environment for two of the two dining rooms. This failure had the po...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications and supplies we...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's dumpster container lids were kept closed when not in use for 49 census residents.
Findings i...
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 observations, interviews, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure cleanliness and ensure food stored in one of one kitchen and in the unit nourishment room,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Social Worker
(Tag F0850)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure that a facility with more than 120 beds employed a full time qualified social worker which included a bachelor's degree in socia...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were appropriately impl...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the daily posted nurse staffing information contained complete information which included the total number and actual ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a resident with an appropriate involuntary transfer discharge when they transferred one sampled resident (Resident #1) to the hospi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and/or update one resident's care plan after each event of v...
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 F0742
(Tag F0742)
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 behavior triggers, which may have predisposed the r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 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 F0678
(Tag F0678)
Someone could have died · 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 basic life support, including cardiopulmonary r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 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
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 one resident was free from physical and verbal abuse and inv...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their Resident Abuse Policy and Procedures by failing to initiate immediate corrective actions to prevent abuse when the Dietary ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
10 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident's right...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews, record reviews, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed and submitted timely for 3 (Residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility fail...
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 observations, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure controlled substances were stored in separately locked, permanently affixed compartments ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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 census was 34.
Review of the State Operation Manual (SOM), showed a qualified so...
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
2. Review of a facility policy titled, Laundry and Bedding, Soiled, revised October 2018, revealed, Soiled laundry/bedding shall be handled, transported and processed according to best practices for i...
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 observations, facility policy review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service s...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on facility document review, interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure 1 (Dietary Aide #17) of 46 staff were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2019
5 deficiencies
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the proper disposal of used razors for two residents (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 routinely assess, monitor and document on two residents receiving d...
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 acceptable infection control practices to pre...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure potentially hazardous foods were stored at safe temperatures, at or below 45 degrees Fahrenheit (F), in the walk-in ref...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the walk-in refrigerator and walk-in freezer were maintained in good repair for four of four days of observation. This had the potenti...
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?"
- "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), 1 harm violation(s), $88,377 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 33 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $88,377 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 Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION 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 Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation Staffed?
CMS rates MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation?
State health inspectors documented 33 deficiencies at MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION during 2019 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 28 with potential for harm, and 2 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 Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation?
MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION 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 OPCO SKILLED MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 119 certified beds and approximately 35 residents (about 29% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in UNIVERSITY CITY, Missouri.
How Does Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation?
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?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION 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 Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation Stick Around?
MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation Ever Fined?
MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION has been fined $88,377 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Missouri average of $33,963. 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 Monarch Springs Wellness & Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?
MONARCH SPRINGS WELLNESS & REHABILITATION 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.