Eben Ezer Lutheran Care Center
122 Hospital Rd, Brush, CO 80723 · Non profit - Corporation · 125 certified beds · (970) 842-2861 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Dec 2025
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.9% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.2% | 4.7% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 1.4% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.7% | 8.8% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.2% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.3% | 13.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.5% | 11.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.3% | 94.7% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.3% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.2% | 20.0% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 70.2% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.6% | 20.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.8% | 12.1% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.30 | 1.38 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.52 | 1.74 | 1.80 | worse |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
46.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 74 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 54 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 14% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 46.5%CMS range 37.3–56.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 6.2–14.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 64.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 46.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 53.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 75.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 95.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 6.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 3.9–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 125 beds and averages 82.1 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 43 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.22 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.91 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.37 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-03-02 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#58 and #48) of four residents out of 25 sample residents reviewed for abuse were kept free from abuse. Resident #48, with a diagnosis of dementia, had known aggressive and impulsive behaviors to other residents. Resident #48 was walking down the hallway and Resident #58 was walking towards her. Resident #48 pushed Resident #58 and she lost her balance. Resident #58 fell to the ground and fractured her right hip. The facility failed to protect Resident #58 from Resident #48's aggressive behaviors. Findings include: Record review and interviews confirmed the facility corrected the deficient practice prior to the onsite investigation on 2/26/23 to 3/2/23, resulting in the deficiency being cited at past non-compliance with a correction date of 1/14/23. I. Facility policy The Abuse policy, revised 7/10/22, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/27/23 at 2:15 p.m. It read in pertinent part: It was the policy of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-03-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide supervision, assistance, services, and implement timely interventions to prevent falls with injuries for two (#29 and #4) of nine residents reviewed for accidents/hazards out of 25 sample residents. Resident #29 had three falls since admission, had severe cognitive impairment, used a wheelchair for ambulation, and required supervision with transfers. Between 9/21/22 and 11/27/22, Resident #29 experienced three falls: one witnessed and two unwitnessed. After the 11/18/22 fall, the resident sustained a left hip fracture. On admission the resident fall risk was 15. The facility failed to initiate a fall care plan with effective interventions to prevent repeated falls. Furthermore, the facility's failure to timely develop appropriate interventions, and effectively anticipate cognitively impaired resident's needs, resulted in two unwitnessed falls within 10 days, contributing to Resident #4's pelvic fracture and decline in activities…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2021-11-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for two (#54 and #2) of six residents reviewed for falls, out of 32 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and effective interventions were in place to prevent multiple falls for Resident #54 and Resident #2, and falls that resulted in multiple injuries to Resident #54. The lack of supervision and effective interventions resulted in seven unwitnessed falls and one witnessed fall since 1/5/21 that caused multiple fractures and injuries to Resident #54's pelvis, right wrist, left hip, left elbow, left hand and head that caused her extreme pain, required trips to the emergency department and resulted in limited mobility. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Fall Prevention policy and procedure, dated 12/16/19, provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/18/21 at 11:38 a.m. read in part: -Each resident will be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2021-11-18 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure that one (#66) of five residents reviewed out of 32 sample residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. The facility's failed to document and evaluate the effectiveness of non pharmacological behavioral interventions for Resident #66, a person with dementia; alternatively psychotropic medications were prescribed which lead to over-sedation of the resident. The resident resided in a secured memory care unit with other residents and had an alarm system on her door to alert staff when the door opened. The facility failed to demonstrate how non-pharmacological interventions were attempted and failed prior to initiating medication changes and prescribing psychotropic medications which posed risk to the resident's health, safety and highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. The resident was prescribed duplicate medication therapies to target behavioral symptoms of dementia with psychosis which had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on and observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure six (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6) of seven residents out of seven sample residents were kept free from abuse.Specifically, the facility failed to:-Ensure Resident #2, Resident #3 and Resident #5 were kept free from physical abuse from Resident #1; -Ensure Resident #1 and Resident #4 were kept free from abuse towards each other; and,-Ensure Resident #6 was kept free from physical abuse by Resident #7.Findings include:I. Facility policy and procedureThe Abuse policy and procedure, revised 9/13/23, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 12/3/25 at 5:58 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Each resident will be free from abuse. Abuse can include verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse, corporal punishment or involuntary seclusion. It is the policy of this community that all team members monitor residents and will know how to identify potential signs and symptoms of abuse. Occurrences, patterns and trends that may…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen and two of four kitchenettes. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure food was labeled, dated and discarded in a timely manner; -Ensure staff performed hand hygiene before donning (putting on) gloves to serve ready-to-eat food; and, -Ensure food was reheated to the appropriate temperature. I. Failed to ensure food was labeled, dated and disposed of timely A. Professional reference The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2024) The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, retrieved on 8/21/24 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kEtv4f6YciFXXzLEu6amUc9Anu9uWGYn/view read in pertinent part, A date marking system that meets the criteria may include: Using a method approved by the Department for refrigerated, ready-to eat potentially hazardous food (time/temperature control for safety food) that is frequently rewrapped, such as lunch…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to establish a sanitary environment to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and infections on two of four hallways. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure housekeeping completed proper hand hygiene when cleaning resident rooms; and, -Ensure nursing followed proper standards of practice during wound care and followed enhanced barrier precautions appropriately. Findings include: I. Failure to ensure housekeeping completed proper hand hygiene when cleaning resident rooms A. Facility policy and procedure The Hand Hygiene policy, revised 5/6/21, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/15/24 at 10:18 a.m. It documented in pertinent part, All staff will perform proper hand hygiene to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, neighbors and visitors. This applies to all working staff in all locations within the facility. Hand hygiene is a general term for cleaning your hands by handwashing with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-15 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#26) of six out of 32 sample residents were provided services that met professional standards of quality. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure the physician's orders for Resident #26 contained the dose of the medication the nurse was to administer to the resident. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Library of Medicine, Nursing Rights of Medication Administration (September 2023), retrieved on 8/21/24 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560654/, It is standard during nursing education to receive instruction on a guide to clinical medication administration and upholding patient safety known as the 'five rights' or 'five R's' of medication administration. Incorrect dosage is a prevalent modality of medication administration error. This error type stems from nurses giving a patient an incorrect dose of medications, even if it is the correct…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided an environment as free of accident hazards as possible for one (#55) of four residents reviewed for accidents and hazards out of 32 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure identified interventions were implemented consistently and monitored for effectiveness; and, -Update and revise Resident #55's care plan with new interventions after each skin injury. Findings include: I. Resident #55 A. Resident status Resident #55, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the August 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia, abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute kidney disease, localized edema and history of falling. The 7/10/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for a mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. He required total assistance with toileting and dressing. He required setup assistance for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-15 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to use a person-centered approach when determining the use of bed rails for one (#57) of 15 residents reviewed for bed rails out of 32 sample residents. Specifically, for Resident #57, the facility failed to: -Assess and review what interventions were attempted prior to the use of side rails; -Ensure the resident's comprehensive care plan was person centered; -Ensure assessments of the resident's use of the bed rails were completed regularly after they were installed; and, -Obtain consent that included the risks and benefits for using bed rails from the resident and/or the resident's representative before the bed rail installation. Findings include: I. Professional reference The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Clinical Guidance for the Assessment and Implementation of Bed Rails In Hospitals, Long Term Care Facilities, (2/27/23) was retrieved on 8/19/24 from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-15 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to complete a performance review of every nurse aide at least once every 12 months and provide regular in-service education based on the outcome of these reviews for one of five certified nurse aides (CNA) reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not provide regular in-service education based on the outcome of the annual performance review for CNA #5. Findings include: I. Record review CNA #5 (hired before 8/14/23) had an annual performance review on 10/1/23. The performance review indicated CNA #5 scored a 50% in the areas of complaints and grievances, environment, quality improvement, workplace violence and sexual harassment. -CNA #5 did not have an in-service education plan based on the outcome of the annual performance review. II. Staff interview The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 8/15/24 at 1:52 p.m. The DON said she was not aware the performance reviews needed to include a regular in-service plan based on the outcome of the reviews. The DON said if a CNA scored 50% on a test, the score indicated the CNA…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with accepted professional standards, for one of three medication storage rooms and one of three medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to discard expired medications and to lock a medication cart, when left unattended. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Medication Storage, dated January 2023, was requested and received on 3/2/23. The policy documented in pertinent part: -Medications and biologicals are stored properly, following manufacturer's or provider pharmacy recommendations, to maintain their integrity and to support safe effective drug administration. The medication supply shall be accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medication; -Outdated medications and containers are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to medication disposal procedures; -Medication storage conditions were monitored on a regular basis as a random…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-11-18 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who were diagnosed with dementia, received the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one (#66) out of three residents reviewed out of 32 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to implement identified person centered interventions for Resident #66, a person with dementia and behavioral disturbances; alternatively the resident was given multiple medications which caused sedation. (cross reference to F758: use of unnecessary psychotropic medications) Findings include: I. Facility policy Per the nursing home administrator (NHA), the facility did not have an official policy related to dementia care, however, did require training of their staff. The following was provided on 11/21/21 at 2:09 p.m. by the NHA, We have required the Hand in Hand training in the past as well as the [NAME] Alternative curriculum Reframing Dementia…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HERGENRETER, SHELLY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/06/2005 |
| MASON, LESLIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/03/2011 |
| BASS, SONYOU | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| CHAPIN, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2009 |
| FRASIER, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2019 |
| LEE, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2022 |
| LEFEVER, TRAVIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| SCHAEFER, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2009 |
| TEKRONEY, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| THISTLE, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| VANNOY, DOUGLAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| EBEN EZER LUTHERAN CARE CENTER | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/1966 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Colorado Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 065163. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-15, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.