RIVERWAYS MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Riverways Manor in Van Buren, Missouri has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average for nursing homes. It ranks #193 out of 479 facilities in Missouri, placing it in the top half, and is the only option in Carter County. The facility is improving, with reported issues decreasing from 13 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing has some concerns, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is 47%, which is better than the state average, suggesting some consistency in staff. While there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, there were several concerns raised in inspections, including unsanitary food storage practices and instances where residents' dignity was not fully respected, highlighting areas where improvements are needed. Overall, families may find both strengths and weaknesses at Riverways Manor, making it crucial to weigh these factors when considering care for loved ones.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Missouri
- #193/479
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 47% 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 ○ Average
- Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Missouri. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 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
Above Missouri average (2.5)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Missouri avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff treated residents with dignity and respect by leaving one resident (Residents #39) out of one sampled resident w...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) to the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing at l...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to document an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS - a feder...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility to follow physician's orders for four residents (Residents #7, #16, #17 and #29) out of four sampled residents when the facility failed...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess, care plan and monitor for efficacy for the use of a wheelchair seatbelt for one resident (Resident #26) out of one sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 ensure a urinary indwelling catheter (a tube inserted ...
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 maintain infection control practices during disinfection of a facility glucometer (a device for measuring the concentration of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
1 deficiency
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an appropriate facility-initiated discharge notice, failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 ensure an order for code status was consistently docu...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 complete and notify in the proper timeframe, at least two calendar days before services were to end, the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (N...
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 send copies of the notice of transfer or discharge to the represent...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a federally mandated assessment tool completed by the facility) assessment for one re...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated a...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete and transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a federally mandated ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and closed record review, the facility failed to ensure a discharge planning process was in place which addressed goals and needs and involved the resident and/or the resident's leg...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and closed record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive discharge summary for one resident (Resident #50) out of two sampled discharged residents. The facility cen...
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 proper care of the enteral feeding (the intake of food through a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) (a tube placed directly thro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0924
(Tag F0924)
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 ensure the handrails on the Red, Blue and Therapy Hall...
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 enviro...
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 store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. These...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2020
4 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to document a complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and update the comprehensive care plan with specific interventions to meet the individual needs of one resident (Resident #31) out o...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post nurse updated and accurate staffing data accessible to residents and visitors on a daily basis. This deficient 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.
- • 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Riverways Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RIVERWAYS MANOR an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Missouri, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Riverways Manor Staffed?
CMS rates RIVERWAYS MANOR's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the Missouri average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Riverways Manor?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at RIVERWAYS MANOR during 2020 to 2024. These included: 23 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Riverways Manor?
RIVERWAYS MANOR 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 60 certified beds and approximately 48 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in VAN BUREN, Missouri.
How Does Riverways Manor Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, RIVERWAYS MANOR's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Riverways Manor?
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 Riverways Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RIVERWAYS MANOR 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 3-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 Riverways Manor Stick Around?
RIVERWAYS MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 47%, 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 Riverways Manor Ever Fined?
RIVERWAYS MANOR 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 Riverways Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
RIVERWAYS MANOR 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.