GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Garden View Care Center at Dougherty Ferry in Valley Park, Missouri, has a Trust Grade of B, meaning it is a good facility that is a solid choice for care. It ranks #74 out of 479 nursing homes in Missouri, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and it is #12 of 69 in St. Louis County, indicating that only a few local options are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 5 in 2022 to 2 in 2024. Staffing is a strength here, rated 5/5 stars with a turnover rate of 38%, which is well below the state average of 57%, suggesting that staff are familiar with residents' needs. Importantly, there have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign, but some concerns remain, such as staff not consistently wearing face coverings during high COVID-19 transmission periods and failure to treat residents with dignity during meal service, like referring to those needing assistance as "feeders" and not cleaning up spills promptly. Overall, while there are some weaknesses, the facility demonstrates a commitment to improving care and maintaining a stable staff.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Missouri
- #74/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Missouri's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Missouri. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Missouri average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Missouri avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Jun 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their abuse policy by not reporting timely after an allegation of sexual abuse was made by one resident (Resident #12) of 12 sampled...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 ensure they followed their abuse policy by failing to conduct a thorough investigation into one resident's (Resident #12) allegation of sex...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of a Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility most recently admitted Resident #478 on 03/18/2022 with diagnoses inclu...
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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to prov...
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 observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff wore beard guards to prevent potential contamination of food prepared in one of one kitchen.
Fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of a Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #5 on 05/11/2022 with diagnoses including dementia wi...
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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff members wore f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2019
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide acceptable and thorough perineal care (peri-care, cleansing the front of the hips and in between the legs and buttocks...
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 and record review, the facility failed to prepare mechanically altered food in a manner that preserved nutritive value. This deficient practice had the potential to aff...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner and in an environment that promotes his/her quality of...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents receiving hospice care had orders on the current p...
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 and interview, the facility failed to prevent resident access to razors in three common spa rooms. This ha...
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 fresh meat was dated when placed in the walk-in refrigerator and that dietary workers with beards wore facial hair rest...
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, the facility failed to ensue staff used acceptable infection control practice...
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.
- • 38% turnover. Below Missouri's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Garden View At Dougherty Ferry's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY 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 Garden View At Dougherty Ferry Staffed?
CMS rates GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Missouri average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Garden View At Dougherty Ferry?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY during 2019 to 2024. These included: 14 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Garden View At Dougherty Ferry?
GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY 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 66 certified beds and approximately 43 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in VALLEY PARK, Missouri.
How Does Garden View At Dougherty Ferry Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Garden View At Dougherty Ferry?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Garden View At Dougherty Ferry Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY 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 Garden View At Dougherty Ferry Stick Around?
GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for Missouri nursing homes (state average: 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 Garden View At Dougherty Ferry Ever Fined?
GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY 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 Garden View At Dougherty Ferry on Any Federal Watch List?
GARDEN VIEW CARE CENTER AT DOUGHERTY FERRY 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.