Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Mcclay Senior Care during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not complete or document required weekly skin assessments and Braden Scale evaluations for several residents, including those admitted with wounds or at high risk for pressure ulcers. As a result, wounds were not properly identified, measured, or reported to physicians, and some residents developed new or worsening pressure ulcers without appropriate care or documentation. Staff interviews confirmed that assessments and documentation were not consistently performed as required by facility policy.
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards for food safety and sanitation. Staff did not use proper hygienic practices, such as wearing hair restraints and washing hands. Food items were not stored correctly, and the ice machine and ceiling vent were dirty. These deficiencies were confirmed through observations and staff interviews.
The facility failed to ensure that residents receiving insulin injections were free from significant medication errors. Staff did not prime the insulin pen needles or hold the dose knob in for the required time, resulting in less than the ordered dose being administered. Interviews revealed a lack of understanding and adherence to proper insulin administration procedures.
The facility failed to properly store and manage controlled substances and other medications, including lorazepam found in an unlocked refrigerator and medications for eight discharged residents not removed or destroyed according to policy. Staff interviews revealed a lack of adherence to medication storage and destruction policies, and unlabeled medications were also found in the lower level medication room.
Failure to Complete Required Skin Assessments and Braden Scales Resulting in Pressure Ulcer Development and Deterioration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct and document required weekly skin assessments and Braden Scale evaluations for multiple residents, as outlined in their own policies. Several residents, including those admitted with existing wounds or at high risk for pressure ulcers (PU), did not receive comprehensive skin assessments upon admission or during their stay. For example, one resident admitted from a hospital with a history of endocarditis and multiple wounds did not have an admission skin assessment completed, and the presence, size, and characteristics of a coccyx wound were not documented. The facility also failed to initiate appropriate wound care orders or document physician notification for this resident, whose wound deteriorated to a Stage III PU and who was subsequently readmitted to the hospital. Other residents similarly did not receive weekly skin assessments or Braden Scale evaluations, despite being at risk for or developing pressure ulcers. One resident developed a Stage II PU that progressed to Stage III without any documented skin assessments or wound documentation. Another resident had wounds on the feet that were not documented or assessed, and a resident on hospice care developed open areas on the coccyx and buttock, as well as an unstageable PU on the heel, none of which were identified or documented by the facility. In these cases, there was also a lack of documentation regarding wound measurements, characteristics, and physician notification. Interviews with staff, including LPNs, CNAs, RNs, and the DON, confirmed that required skin assessments were not consistently performed or documented. Staff acknowledged that admission and weekly skin assessments should have been completed and that wounds should have been documented and reported to physicians for treatment orders. The facility's own policies required comprehensive skin assessments upon admission, weekly for four weeks, and with any significant change in condition, as well as the use of the Braden Scale to assess PU risk. These requirements were not met for several residents, resulting in a failure to provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevention.
Food Safety and Sanitation Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and sanitation. Staff did not practice proper hygienic practices, including the use of hair restraints, handwashing, and gloving. Observations showed that dietary staff did not wear beard restraints, and hairnets were not properly covering all hair. Additionally, staff were observed handling food and beverage containers and utensils in an unsanitary manner, such as touching eating surfaces with bare hands and not washing hands between tasks. Personal food and beverage items were also consumed in food preparation areas, contrary to facility policy. The facility's dietary manager and aides were observed engaging in multiple unsanitary practices. For instance, the dietary manager used the same gloves for various tasks without changing them or washing hands in between. Dietary aides were seen adjusting their clothing, touching unsanitary surfaces, and then handling food and utensils without washing their hands. A CNA was observed preparing beverages without washing hands after touching their face and mouth. These actions were in direct violation of the facility's policies on handwashing, glove use, and personal hygiene. Food storage practices were also found to be deficient. Open food items were not properly sealed, labeled, or dated, and some items were stored inappropriately, such as liquid margarine left unrefrigerated and an open pouch of rice not stored according to the manufacturer's instructions. The facility's ice machine and ceiling vent were found to be dirty, with visible accumulations of debris, indicating a lack of regular cleaning and maintenance. These deficiencies were confirmed through interviews with the dietary manager and staff, who acknowledged the lapses in following the facility's policies and procedures.
Failure to Properly Administer Insulin Injections
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that three residents receiving insulin injections were free from significant medication errors. Staff did not prime the Humalog/Novolog Kwik pen needles as instructed by the manufacturer, resulting in the administration of less than the ordered dose of insulin. Additionally, staff did not hold the needle against the resident's skin for the manufacturer's suggested time after administering the medication. These actions were observed in three residents with diabetes, who required precise insulin dosing to manage their blood sugar levels. For Resident #5, staff did not prime the insulin pen or hold the dose knob in for five seconds before removing the needle during multiple administrations. Similarly, for Resident #44, staff failed to prime the insulin pen and did not hold the dose knob in for the required time after administering the medication. Resident #2 also experienced the same issues, with staff not priming the insulin pen and not holding the dose knob in for the necessary duration after administration. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of understanding and adherence to proper insulin administration procedures. One CMT believed that dialing up the dose pulled the air from the needle, while another CMT incorrectly primed the needle by dialing up past the ordered dose and then back down. The Director of Nursing confirmed that staff were expected to prime insulin needles and hold the dose knob in accordance with manufacturer guidelines, which was not being consistently practiced.
Improper Medication Storage and Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly store and manage controlled substances and other medications, leading to several deficiencies. Lorazepam, a Schedule IV narcotic, was found in an unlocked refrigerator in the lower level medication room without proper documentation or a narcotic sheet for reconciliation. Additionally, medications for eight discharged residents were not removed or destroyed according to facility policy, with some medications remaining in the facility for up to 671 days after the resident's discharge. These medications included ketorolac tromethamine, NovoLog insulin, Heparin Lock Flush Solution, and others, all of which were improperly stored and not disposed of in a timely manner. The facility's policies on medication storage and destruction were not followed. Narcotics were not stored under a double locking system, and discontinued medications were not placed in a locked box awaiting destruction. The Director of Nursing (DON) and other staff members failed to ensure that medications were destroyed within the 30-day period as required by the facility's policy. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to these policies, with some staff members destroying medications alone and without proper documentation. Unlabeled medications were also found in the lower level medication room, including glucose gel, Glucagon Emergency Kits, and various other medications. The facility's pharmacy consultant, who was responsible for checking the medication rooms, failed to identify and report these issues. The DON and the administrator were unaware of the extent of the problem, indicating a significant lapse in oversight and management of medication storage and destruction processes within the facility.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 821 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 10 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Saint Peters
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| St Peters Rehab And Healthcare Center | 2.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| St Peters Post Acute | 3 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Ignite Medical Resort St Peters | 3 mi | — | 23 | 0 |
| Nhc Healthcare, St Charles | 3.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Aspen Point Health And Rehabilitation | 3.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 9 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Mcclay Senior Care.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.