No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Juniper Village - The Spearly Center

2205 W 29th Ave, Denver, CO 80211 · For profit - Corporation · 135 certified beds · (303) 458-1112 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citations on record (F0600, F0603) — most recent May 20263 immediate-jeopardy citations1 actual-harm citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$267,831 in federal fines1 Medicare payment denial
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

Worth asking about
  • it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0603) — most recent May 2026
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • 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
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (25) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $267,831 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-22)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)

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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2490 W 26th Ave Ste A120 · (303) 925-4580 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1900 18th St · (303) 534-1110 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1537 Platte St · (303) 477-3322 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 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.

See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased18.5%13.4%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.8%4.7%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.1%0.6%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.6%1.4%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.7%8.8%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.6%3.4%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened12.1%13.3%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication6.9%11.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.7%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.3%3.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control17.6%21.2%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table52.8%20.0%17.1%check this — see note marked dagger below the table
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine75.0%75.6%79.4%typical

This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

§ 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.

0.13U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.07hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFsnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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

0.43
RN hours/ resident / day
0.65
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.68
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.76
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.35
RN hoursweekends
52.6%
Total nursing turnover
52.6%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 135 beds and averages 126.9 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 2.76 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.68 is below 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 2.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.91 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-14)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2025-12-04)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

25 citations, most serious first. The 15 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.

  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-04-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 an environment free from risk of accidents and hazards for one (#77) of five residents reviewed for accident hazards out of 37 sample residents. R77 had severe cognitive impairments. On 3/19/25, the resident took a piece of bread from another resident's plate and ate it. R77 choked and required the Heimlich maneuver (abdominal thrusts used to clear food from a person's airway that is choking) to clear the food from his airway. The resident's care plan directed staff to assist R77 with controlling his rate of eating, monitoring the resident's bite sizes to ensure the resident did not choke and monitoring the resident to avoid the resident stuffing food into his mouth. Additionally, R77 was prescribed a mechanically altered diet. Observations during the survey revealed R77 received menu items that were not consistent with his prescribed diet order. The staff failed to provide supervision during meals to ensure the resident did not…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · Lcited before2024-12-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — widespread
    Ensure 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 that one (#1) of three sample residents and other residents residing on the facility's third floor remained as free from accidents as possible. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for long-term care. The resident was severely cognitively impaired and impulsive with poor safety awareness. At the time of admission, he was assessed not to be at risk for elopement. However, after admission, staff reported he was always on the move, standing near the doors and observing people passing in and out. By 11/30/24, the resident had become increasingly agitated and made several attempts to leave, setting off alarms when he attempted to open the doors. At approximately 1:08 p.m. that day, the resident eloped from the facility. Video surveillance revealed the resident, wearing shorts, a short-sleeved shirt, and flip-flops, followed a staff member through the emergency exit door (kitchen delivery door) on the first floor before…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · K2024-05-23 · tag F0675 — failed to support quality of life — pattern
    Honor each resident's preferences, choices, values and beliefs.
    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 residents residing on the second and third floors of the facility, including Residents #1, #182, #74, #73, #75, #92, #103, #67, #87, #95, #102, #14, #76, #115, #68, #7, #77, #112, #57, and #8, with an environment that supported and enhanced each resident's dignity, self-worth, sense of satisfaction, and control over their lives. Observations and interviews with residents and staff revealed facility practices that showed a disregard for residents' quality of life and were inconsistent with the facility Resident Rights policy to provide residents with a holistic program that provided respect, dignity, and compassion. Resident interviews and observations revealed restrictions on residents' day-to-day lives that were not supported by evidence the facility had considered their impact on residents' quality of life or that the restrictions were necessary to maintain a safe and healthy environment. Facility practices limited and/or…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-10-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#2) of four residents reviewed for accidents out of seven sample residents remained free from accidents. Resident #2, who was non-weight bearing with a history of osteoporosis and was known to be at risk for pathological fractures (fractures caused by disease processes rather than trauma), sustained bilateral distal femoral fractures (thigh bone above the knee) during a transfer with a mechanical (Hoyer) lift into a wheelchair. During the facility's investigation, it was identified that the type of Hoyer sling being used was a split leg sling which required the sling straps to be placed under and crossed around the thighs while the resident was being lifted out of bed and being transferred to the wheelchair. It was identified that the placement of the straps caused pressure and external rotation on the resident's thighs while being lifted with the Hoyer lift and was consistent with the location of Resident #2's fractures. Due to 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · G2023-12-19 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    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 provide services in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for one (#3) of five residents reviewed for catheter care management out of 11 sample residents. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for long term care. He had a diagnosis of dementia with behaviors, Parkinson's disease and kidney disease. On 9/10/23 the resident developed signs of a urinary tract infection (UTI). He was sent to the emergency room (ER) for the evaluation and returned to the facility the next day (9/11/23) with an indwelling urinary catheter. Upon the resident's readmission from the ER, the facility failed to assess the resident for the need of the urinary catheter and did not document its presence and care. Subsequently, the resident developed an acute UTI with sepsis (a serious condition in which the body responds improperly to an infection) that resulted in two separate hospitalizations on 9/18/23 and 11/12/23. During the last…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-14 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect 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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#65 and #124) of eight residents were kept free from abuse out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to protect Resident #124 from physical abuse by Resident #65 and protect Resident #65 from physical abuse by Resident #124. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Abuse and Neglect policy, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 5/11/26 at 11:45 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Alleged and substantial incidents, complete investigation reports, and if necessary, corrective actions taken, will be reported to the Resident's responsible party, Physician, Ombudsman, State Licensing Authority and Police Department as appropriate. II. Incident of resident-to-resident physical abuse between Resident #65 and Resident #124. A.…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-12-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
    Ensure 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were properly stored, secured and labeled in accordance with accepted professional standards for three of five medication storage carts and one of three medication storage rooms. Specifically, the facility failed to:-Ensure a Schedule IV controlled medication was properly stored in a refrigerator;-Ensure medications were labeled with open dates; and, -Ensure expired medications were properly disposed of. Findings include:I. Professional reference PharMerica (1/12/25) Abridged List of Medications with Shortened Expirations Dates, was retrieved on 12/8/25 from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://pharmerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PMC-[NAME]-Meds-with-Shortened-Expiration-Dates_012025_FINAL.pdf. it revealed in pertinent part, Once certain products are opened and in use, they must be used within a specific timeframe to avoid reduced stability, sterility and potentially reduced…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infection on one of three units Specifically, the facility failed to:-Ensure Resident #122's oral stimulator was kept in a sanitary location;-Ensure housekeeping staff performed hand hygiene while cleaning resident rooms;-Ensure housekeeping staff wait the appropriate amount of dwell time. Findings include: I. Failure to keep Resident #122's oral stimulator in a sanitary location A. Facility policy and procedure The Infection Control policy and procedure, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 12/4/25 at 12:09 p.m. Iit read in pertinent part, Associates will be educated related to all infection control procedures, including personal hygiene requirements. The Community will follow guidelines for the prevention and control of Nosocomial Infections…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-04-25 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespread
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented in order to facilitate improvement in the lives of nursing home residents through continuous attention to quality of care, quality of life, and resident safety. Specifically, the quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) program committee failed to identify and address concerns related to accidents and safety of residents, which rose to the level of immediate jeopardy and created a situation that a serious adverse outcome was likely. Findings include: I. Review of the facility's regulatory record revealed it failed to operate a QA program in a manner to prevent repeat deficiencies and initiate a plan to correct F689 Accidents Hazards During the recertification survey on 5/23/24 F689 was cited at a L level scope and severity, immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety, widespread. During the abbreviated survey on 12/11/24 F689 was cited at a L level scope and severity, immediate jeopardy to…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-25 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    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 interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed to meet the resident's nutritional needs. Specifically, the facility failed to follow correct portions sizes to ensure adequate nutrition was provided to the residents. Findings include: I. Record review The menu extensions were provided by the Dietary Manager (DM) on 4/10/25 at 4:02 p.m. The menu extensions revealed in pertinent part: -A 1/2 cup serving of seasoned couscous to residents who were prescribed a regular diet, mechanical soft diet and therapeutic diets; -A 1/2 cup serving of pureed seasoned couscous to the residents who were prescribed a pureed diet; -A 1/2 cup serving of [NAME] vegetable blend regular, mechanical soft and therapeutic diets; and, -A 1/2 cup serving of the pureed [NAME] vegetable blend. II. Observations During a continuous observation of the lunch meal on 4/9/25, beginning at 12:01 p.m. and ending at 1:00 p.m., Dietary Aide (DA) #1 used the following scoop sizes: -A #12 scoop (1/3…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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

    Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, distributed and served under sanitary conditions in the main kitchen and one of two nourishment refrigerators. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure safe and appropriate storage of food items in the nourishment room refrigerators; -Ensure ready-to-eat foods were handled in a sanitary manner to prevent cross-contamination in the main kitchen; and, -Maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen to prevent the harborage of pests. Findings include: I. Failure to safely and appropriately store food items A. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Regulations, (3/16/24), were retrieved on 4/17/25. It revealed in pertinent part, Ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or less for a maximum of seven days. The day…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were followed for R45 and R78, -Ensure proper hand hygiene was followed during wound care for R78, -Ensure housekeeping staff followed appropriate hand hygiene processes when cleaning resident rooms; and, -Ensure high touch surfaces in residents' rooms were cleaned. Findings include: I. EBP and hand hygiene failures A. Professional reference According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDRO)'s, (4/2/24), retrieved on 4/15/25 from https://www.cdc.gov/long-term-care-facilities/hcp/prevent-mdro/PPE.html, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are an…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolated
    Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
    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 and their representatives had a right to participate in the development and implementation of their person-centered plan of care for two (#102 and #41) of four residents out of 37 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to invite R102's and R41's representatives to participate in the care conferences to review the resident's plan of care. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Service Plan policy, undated, was provided by the Health Information Manager (HIM) on 4/10/25 at 4:45 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Residents will have a service plan developed at move-in and with a change of condition. The purpose is to assist residents in maintaining independence, individuality, dignity and privacy through a written plan of care. The service plan is completed at move-in based upon the resident evaluation and level of care determination and initial wellness evaluation. It is expected that the resident will…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · tag F0559 — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to share a room with spouse or roommate of choice and receive written notice before a change is made.
    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 provide written notification of room changes for one (#55) of two residents reviewed for notifications out of 37 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide timely written notification of a room change and the reasoning to R55's; and, -Honor R55's room preferences. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Room/Roommate Changes policy and procedure, undated, was provided by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 4/10/25 at 5:27 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The social services representative will serve as an advocate for the resident's right to remain in their room placement unless the resident requests a room change, or the move is necessary for improved provision of medical or community life services. If a room change is deemed necessary, the Social Service Representative will obtain verbal consent from the resident and/or responsible party. This is documented in the community life progress notes or on a room…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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 develop a comprehensive care plan for one (#110) of three residents reviewed for care planning out of 37 sample residents to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to address R110's functional abilities and activities of daily living (ADL). Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Service Plan policy and procedure, undated, was provided by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 4/10/25 at 5:27 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part, Residents will have a service plan developed at move-in to assist residents in maintaining independence, individuality, dignity, and privacy through a written plan of care. The service plan is completed at move-in based upon the resident evaluation and level of care determination and initial wellness evaluation. II. Resident #110 A. Resident status R110, age less…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Show the remaining 10 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    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 two (#46 and #98) of three residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice out of 37 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure physician's orders to treat R46's skin condition on his hands were followed; and, -Ensure R98's skin rash was addressed in a timely manner. Findings include: I. Resident #46 A. Resident status R46, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2025 computerized physicians orders (CPO), diagnoses included alcohol dependence with alcohol-induced persisting dementia, dermatitis and psoriasis. The 3/13/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15. The resident was independent for all activities of daily living (ADL). The assessment documented the resident did not have any issues with his skin. The assessment…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 the necessary treatment and services to treat and prevent pressure injuries for one (#45) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers out of 37 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide timely assessment by a qualified person; -Provide timely interventions and treatment after new wounds were found; -Notify key individuals (hospice, wound specialist, primary physician) to ensure timely interventions, assessments, and updated care plans, were in place to avoid wounds from worsening; and, -Ensure wound care documentation was thorough and accurate. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, European Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline, third edition, [NAME] Haesler (Ed.), EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA (2019), retrieved on 4/16/25 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-25 · tag F0849 — isolated
    Arrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
    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 the hospice services provided met professional standard and principles that applied to individuals providing services in the facility for one (#78) of four residents reviewed for hospice services out of 37 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the hospice agency's notes were easily accessible to the facility staff and had consistent communication and documentation of hospice care visits and updates. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Hospice Program policy, undated, was provided by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 4/7/25 at 11:01 a.m. It read in pertinent part, When a resident has been diagnosed as terminally ill, the director of wellness will contact a hospice agency and request that a visit/interview with the resident/family be conducted to determine the resident's wishes relative to participate in the hospice program and to review available hospice (services) with the resident and/or…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-12-11 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespread
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented in order to facilitate improvement in the lives of nursing home residents through continuous attention to quality of care, quality of life, and resident safety. Specifically, the quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) program committee failed to identify and address concerns related to accidents and safety of residents, which rose to the level of immediate jeopardy and created a situation that a serious adverse outcome was likely. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The facility's QAPI policy was requested from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 12/11/24 at 4:50 p.m. -However, the policy was not provided as requested. II. Repeat deficiencies Review of the facility's regulatory record revealed it failed to operate a QAPI program in a manner to prevent repeat deficiencies in F689 Accidents/Hazards. During a recertification survey on 5/23/24, F689 was cited at a L level scope…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
    Protect 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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure four (#118, #32, #49 and #90) of four residents reviewed for abuse out of 56 sample residents were kept free from abuse. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Implement person-centered interventions to prevent a resident to resident altercation between Resident #118 and Resident #32; and, -Implement person-centered interventions to prevent a resident to resident altercation between Resident #90 and Resident #49. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Abuse Policy, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 5/13/24 at 2:22 p.m. It read in pertinent part: This policy is intended to provide guidance on investigating and reporting suspected resident rights violations and abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of resident property. To assist our community's associate members in recognizing abuse, the following definitions of abuse are provided. Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-23 · tag F0603 — failed to not confine residents against their will — pattern
    Protect each resident from separation (from other residents, his/her room, or confinement to his/her room).
    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, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that six (#118, #126, #121, #115, #72 and #20) of nine residents out of 56 sample residents were free from involuntary seclusion and were receiving the least restrictive approach for their needs. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Residents #118, #126, #121, #115, #72 and #20, who resided on the secure locked unit, had the required documentation to justify such restrictions. Findings include: I. Resident #118 A. Resident status Resident #118, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the May 2024 computerized physicians orders (CPO), diagnoses included post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Alzheimer's disease and bipolar disorder. According to the 3/24/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of zero out of 15. He was independent with eating, toileting, bed mobility and transferring. He did not use any mobility devices.…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-23 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — pattern
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse was properly disposed of and the dumpster lid was closed to prevent harborage to pests and insects in one of one dumpster area. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the dumpster lids were closed and the surrounding environment was maintained in a cleanly manner. Findings include: I. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Regulations, (3/16/24), were retrieved on 6/1/24 from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/environment/food-regulations. It read in pertinent part, Receptacles and waste handling units for refuse, recyclables, and returnables used with materials containing food residue and used outside the food establishment shall be designed and constructed to have tight-fitting lids, doors or covers. Cardboard or other packaging material that does not contain food residues and that is awaiting regularly scheduled delivery to a recycling or disposal site may be stored outside without being in a covered receptacle if it is stored so that it does not create a rodent…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    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 ensure residents on one of three units had the right to a dignified existence. Specifically, the facility failed to answer call lights in a timely manner on the second floor. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Call light policy, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator on 5/20/24 at 3:16 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Purpose: To respond promptly to resident's call for assistance. All community personnel must be aware of call lights at all times. Answer all call lights in a timely manner. In some instances, it may be necessary to leave the call light illuminated/activated in order to alert other staff or care team. Never make the resident feel you are too busy to give assistance. II. Resident group interview The resident group interview was conducted on 5/15/24 at 11:00 a.m. with seven residents (#76, #75, #115, #68, #7, #77 and #112) who were members of the resident council. The residents were identified as interviewable by 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#181) of three residents out of 56 sample residents were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances. Specifically, the facility failed to provide a satisfactory resolution to Resident #181's grievance, which the resident representative had communicated to staff on multiple occasions, regarding the resident's missing glasses. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Grievance policy and procedure, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/14/24 at 1:35 p.m. It read in pertinent part, When a grievance exists, residents, family members, and/or resident advocates may submit the grievance to the administrator or designee. Within two business days after the submission of a grievance, a status report will be provided by the director of the department to who the grievance was directed, to the individual who filed the grievance. The resident or person acting on behalf of the 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    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 thoroughly investigate an allegation of neglect involving one (#8) of two residents reviewed for neglect out of 56 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the cause of reddened skin and blisters found on Resident #8's left and right thigh. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Abuse and Neglect policy, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 5/13/24 at 2:17 p.m. It documented in pertinent part, This policy is intended to provide guidance on investigating and reporting suspected resident rights violations and abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of resident property. This policy will be accomplished through the following: a. Pre-Screening of all facility associates and agency supplemental personnel. b. Training and documentation of training for all associates and agency supplemental personnel through orientation and on-going sessions. c. Prevention through training…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$267,831 in federal fines across 6 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

  • $10,953 — penalty dated 2025-04-22
  • $114,111 — penalty dated 2024-12-11
  • $14,260 — penalty dated 2024-10-23
  • $42,965 — penalty dated 2024-06-05
  • $66,256 — penalty dated 2024-05-23
  • $19,286 — penalty dated 2023-12-19
  • Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-07-02 for 76 days

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to JUNIPER COMMUNITIES — 3 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 54.0-2.0 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 53.3-1.3 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 54.3-1.3 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.7+0.3 vs chain
The other 2 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
JUNIPER PARK, LPOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF100%since 03/18/2010
JUNIPER COMMUNTIES LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/28/2013
COPPERHILL ASSOCIATES LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF12%since 06/28/2013
FALCON CAPITAL LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF12%since 06/28/2013
POITRAS, JAMESIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF15%since 06/28/2010
POITRAS, PATRICIAIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF15%since 06/28/2010
BRENEMAN, DONALDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/02/2024
HASTINGS, CHARLESIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/20/2010
KATZMANN, LYNNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/28/2013
PURCELL, AMYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/02/2024
JUNIPER MANAGEMENT, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/12/2025
JUNIPER PARTNERS, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/13/2025
DONATO, LINDAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/31/2023
PRESSLER, STEPHANIEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/02/2016
CDEBACA, MERINAIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 03/19/2013
DERGANCE, JEANNAEIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
LOPEZ, MARIEIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2023
NEVARES, DARRIUSIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 06/13/2019
NUGENT, KEITHIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 10/21/2019
ORNDOFF, TAMARAIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 06/12/2023
SPILLANE, TINAIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 05/16/2011

CMS files one row per role, so the 42 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

6 organizational owners 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.

$12.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-2.0%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$812K
Related-party expense6% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 79%Medicare 0%Other / private 21%

About 79% 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. This home reported $812K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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

$287per resident / day
operating cost
$8,738per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$282per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Colorado
$10,159/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,182/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,584/mo
Assisted living

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 065327. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-14, 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.

What to do next