Suites At Clermont Park Care Center, The
2480 S Clermont St, Denver, CO 80222 · Non profit - Corporation · 63 certified beds · (720) 974-3700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 held steady at 5 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 | 27.6% | 13.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 4.7% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.0% | 1.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.2% | 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 | 0.6% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 31.9% | 13.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.6% | 11.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.7% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 35.3% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.0% | 20.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 58.8% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.4% | 20.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.0% | 12.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.18 | 1.38 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.22 | 1.74 | 1.80 | better |
§ 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.
72.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 198 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.6% 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 94 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 72.8%CMS range 65.2–77.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 7.2–13.7 | 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 | 59.6% | 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 | 70.2% | 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 | 38.3% | 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 | 96.2% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.5% | 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 | 3.8% | 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 | 4.9%CMS range 2.6–8.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.70 | 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 63 beds and averages 59.7 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 3 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 4.47 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.51 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 3.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.70 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.13 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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 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.
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 · G2022-09-15 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 (#30) of two out of 26 sample residents received the care and services necessary to meet their nutrition needs to maintain their highest level of physical well-being. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure, repeated falls, macular degeneration (deterioration of the eye), dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) and developmental delays. Upon admission Resident #30 reported he thought he had lost approximately 20 pounds (lbs) during the food preferences assessment. The resident weighed 164 lbs on 7/29/22. The facility failed to implement a nutritional intervention upon admission, despite the resident reporting weight loss prior to admission. On 8/2/22 the facility obtained a physician order for Magic cup (nutritional ice cream supplement) upon family request. The admission nutritional assessment was completed on 8/10/22, 13 days after the resident was admitted 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-18 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 ensure one (#38) of two residents reviewed for resident rights out of 35 sample residents received appropriate treatment and services consistent with his interests, assessments and plan of care. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #38 received his showers consistently with his preferences. Findings include: I. Resident #38A. Resident status Resident #38, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2026 computerized orders (CPO), diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (low blood oxygen levels), urinary tract infection and muscle weakness. The 2/4/26 minimum data (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of zero out of 15. The resident required moderate assistance for showering and was dependent on staff for toileting, dressing, eating, hygiene and transfers. B. Resident representative interview…
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 before2026-02-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations 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.Specifically, the facility failed to rinse and store nebulizers (a small machine that turns liquid medication into a mist that can be inhaled to treat lung conditions) masks and reservoirs properly. Findings includeI. Professional referenceThe Center for Disease (CDC) Guidelines for the Prevention of Nosocomial Pneumonia, dated September 2024, was retrieved on 2/19/26 from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00045365.htm. It read in pertinent part: Outbreaks related to the use of respiratory-therapy equipment have been associated with contaminated nebulizers. When the fluid in the reservoir of a nebulizer becomes contaminated with bacteria, the aerosol produced may contain high concentrations of bacteria that can be deposited deep in the patient's lower respiratory tract. Contaminated reservoirs of aerosol-producing devices (nebulizers) can…
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 · E2024-01-11 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a response, action and rationale to residents involved in group grievances. Specifically, the facility failed to follow up with residents' concerns regarding call light response times that were brought up by the resident council during regular meetings. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Grievance Management policy, which was undated, was provided by nurse consultant (NC) #2 on 1/10/24 at 6:02 p.m. It read in pertinent part: The community upholds and supports resident rights and seeks to address any alleged violation of such rights in a timely and effective manner. Any resident, resident representative or the resident advisory council had the right to voice grievances to the community without discrimination or reprisal or fear of discrimination or reprisal. A complaint or issue brought to the attention of the community by a resident or resident representative that is not resolved more informally and in a very timely manner (generally within three days) will be referred to the formal problem-resolution…
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 · D2024-01-11 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 maintain personal privacy during care for two (#36 and #4) of three residents reviewed for privacy of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Close Resident #36's bedroom door while she was assisted by staff with getting dressed after a shower; and, -Close Resident #4's bathroom and bedroom doors while she was assisted to the bathroom. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Resident Rights policy, implemented November 2022, was provided by the community executive director (ED) on 1/10/24 at 9:26 p.m. read in pertinent part: Residents have the right to be treated with respect and dignity. Residents have the right to privacy in treatment and caring for residents' personal needs. II. Resident #36 A. Resident status Resident #36, age over 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the January 2024 computerized physician order (CPO) diagnoses included Bell's Palsy (unexplained facial muscle weakness or paralysis) and neurocognitive…
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 · D2024-01-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene for two (#18 and #30) of four residents out of 41 sample residents reviewed for ADLs Specifically, the facility failed to provide: -Assistance with hydration for Resident #30 and Resident #18; -Restorative therapy for Resident #18; and, -Change Resident #18 care plan when her assistance level had changed. Findings include: I. Resident #18 A. Resident status Resident #18, age72, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the January 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included lateral sclerosis (muscle twitching and weakness), chronic kidney disease and osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease). The 11/16/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14…
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 · D2024-01-11 · 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 observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for two (#9 and #20) out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide supervision to Resident #9 while suspended in a Hoyer mechanical lift; and, -Prevent skin injuries to Resident #20 during care with staff. Findings include: I. Resident #9 A. Professional reference The Hoyer lift User Manual, written in 2014, read in pertinent: The Hoyer lift is intended for indoor use only and must be operated by a minimum of two people or carers. B. Resident status Resident #9, age over 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the January 2024 computerized physician order (CPO), diagnoses included acquired absence of left leg below the knee (leg amputation), age-related osteoporosis, polyosteoarthritis (cartilage degeneration), chronic pain, dementia, Parkinsonism (brain condition that caused slowed movements and stiffness) and encounter for palliative…
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 · D2024-01-11 · 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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received the appropriate treatment and services to maintain their highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for two (#3 and #43) of four residents reviewed for dementia care out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #3 and Resident #43, who had dementia, were provided consistent specialized services and support with activities of daily living (ADLs) and a meaningful activity program. Findings include I. Facility policy The Rhythms Dementia Services policy, which was undated, was provided by nurse consultant (NC) #2 on 1/10/24 at 9:26 p.m. read in pertinent: Our Rhythms Dementia Philosophy and Program recognizes that dementia changes the way a person experiences the world around them. Our job is to create [NAME] where life is worth living. We are committed to honoring and supporting people wherever they are in the rhythm of their life. The majority of distress…
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 before2024-01-11 · 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 observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored and labeled properly on one of four medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Discard prepared and contaminated medication that had not been administered; and, -Maintain the temperature of opened food items on the medication cart. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Medication Storage policy, revised January 2023, was provided by the community executive director (ED) on 1/17/23 at 4:45 p.m. It read in pertinent part: Outdated, contaminated, discontinued or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal. The Food and Supply Storage policy, revised January 2023, was provided by nurse consultant (NC) #1 on 1/10/24. It read in pertinent part: Cover, label and date unused portions and open packages. Store foods in their original packages. Food that must be opened must be stored in NSF (National Sanitation…
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 before2024-01-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the possible development and transmission of infectious disease. Specifically, the facility failed to offer updated COVID-19 vaccinations and document consent or declination for vaccination for Residents #7 and #27. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Stay Up to Date with COVID -19 Vaccines/What You Need to Know, revised 11/16/23, retrieved on 1/16/24 from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html, in pertinent part: CDC recommends the 2023-2024 updated COVID-19 vaccines: Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Novavax, to protect against serious illness from COVID-19. Everyone aged 5 years and older should get one dose of an updated COVID-19 vaccine to protect against serious illness from COVID-19. People who are moderately or severely immunocompromised may get additional doses of updated COVID-19…
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 before2022-09-15 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 honor resident choices for three (#16, #17 and #26) of four reviewed for self-determination, out of 26 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure dependent Residents #16, #17 and #26 received showers consistently according to their preference. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) policy was requested by the nursing home administrator (NHA) and director of nursing (DON) on 9/15/22 at 12:45 p.m. The DON said the facility did not utilize an ADL policy, but instead utilized a standard of practice competency. The Standard of Practice Giving a Tub Bath/Shower Competency was provided by the NHA on 9/15/22 at 12:30 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Check POC (point of care) to see if assigned residents are due for tub bath/shower and level of assistance. Always consider the resident's preferences for bathing, including type, time, products, etc. -However, the competency did not include…
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 before2022-09-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure two out of two medication refrigerators stored and secured drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure multi-dose vials of Tuberculin were dated when first opened; -Ensure alcohol for drinking was not stored with medications; -Ensure food and medications were not stored together; and, -Ensure expired medications were removed from the medication rooms. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Tubersol package insert, retrieved on 9/19/22 from https://www.fda.gov/media/74866/download, A vial of TUBERSOL which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded. II. Facility policy and procedure The Storage of Medications policy and procedure, dated 2007, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 9/14/22 at 12:35 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Medications and biologicals were stored properly, following manufacturer's or provider pharmacy recommendations, to maintain their integrity and to support safe…
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 · D2022-09-15 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange 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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the hospice services provided meet professional standards and principles that applied to individuals providing services in the facility for one (#37) of four residents reviewed for hospice services out of 26 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Have a written agreement to ensure for Residents #37, a written plan of care included both the most recent hospice plan of care and a description of the services furnished by the long term care (LTC) facility; and, -Ensure that the LTC facility staff provide orientation regarding the policies and procedures of the facility, including patient rights, appropriate forms, and record keeping requirements, to hospice staff furnishing care to LTC residents. Findings include: I. Resident #37 A. Resident status Resident #37, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the September 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), senile degeneration, reduced mobility, chronic…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHRISTIAN LIVING NEIGHBORHOODS | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/26/2025 |
| FRALICK, TRACI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/05/2018 |
| CHILDS, BRYON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/28/2007 |
| KELLER, JAYNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2021 |
| VITALE-AUSSEM, JILL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/01/2020 |
| FRANKEN, JAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/09/2007 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.
This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 065344. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-18, 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.