Fairacres Manor, Inc.
1700 18th Ave, Greeley, CO 80631 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 116 certified beds · (970) 353-3370 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — 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 (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 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 | 41.0% | 13.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.3% | 4.7% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.7% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.5% | 1.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.3% | 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 | 3.7% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 38.8% | 13.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.1% | 11.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.4% | 94.7% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.4% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.0% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.0% | 20.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.2% | 75.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.4% | 20.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.2% | 12.1% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.62 | 1.38 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 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.
54.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 52 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 34.3% 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 35 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 54.5%CMS range 40.9–66.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.3%CMS range 6.5–14.0 | 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 | 34.3% | 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 | 37.1% | 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 | 25.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 95.2% | 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 | not 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.4% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 5.8%CMS range 3.3–10.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 116 beds and averages 106.4 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.88 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.30 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 3.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
17 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2020-02-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 ensure resident care consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent avoidable pressure ulcers (injuries) for two (#63 and #85) of four residents reviewed out of 39 sample residents. Resident #63 was admitted with dementia and muscle weakness and required extensive two-person assistance for mobility and transfers. This made the resident at risk for skin breakdown. The facility was aware of the resident's condition and failed to implement offloading, pressure relieving interventions until after the resident developed pressure ulcers. The resident had developed five facility-aquired pressure ulcers, two of which were stage 4, and two were unstageable. Furthermore, some interventions that were implemented were not person-centered or effective to assist the ulcers in healing (see observations and physical therapist interview). Additionally, the facility failed to monitor an implemented intervention of a Roho cushion (pressure…
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 · Fcited before2024-06-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure safe holding temperatures for food items were maintained; -Ensure kitchen staff wore appropriate hair restraints when preparing and serving food to residents; and, -Ensure kitchen staff handled ready-to-eat foods in an appropriate sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination. Findings include: I. Maintain safe holding temperatures for food items A. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Regulations, effective 3/16/24, were retrieved on 6/10/24 from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/environment/food-regulations. It revealed in pertinent part, Time/temperature control for safety food cold holding shall be maintained at 5 degrees Celsius (C) (41 degrees Fahrenheit) or less. Time/temperature control for safety food that is cooked to a temperature and for a time specified under §§ 3-401.11 - 3-401.13 and received hot shall be at a temperature of 57 degrees C…
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 · E2024-06-06 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure 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
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed to meet the residents nutritional needs. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Follow the weekly menu to ensure adequate nutrition was provided to the residents; and, -Ensure Resident #38 and Resident #10 were provided with the correct mechanically altered diet. Findings include: I. Failure to follow the weekly menu to ensure adequate nutrition was provided to the residents A. Observations and record review Review of the menu and the menu extensions for the 6/3/24 lunch meal revealed that 2% (percent) milk was to be served. On 6/3/24 the lunch service was observed during a continuous observation in the main and rear dining rooms, beginning at 10:50 a.m. and ending at 11:58 p.m. -The dietary aides in the main and rear dining rooms did not offer residents milk as a beverage during the observation period, but offered soda and juice instead. Review of the menu and menu extensions for the 6/3/24 dinner meal revealed that a side of tartar sauce was to be served to all residents and 2%…
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 before2024-06-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 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 on two of four units. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure housekeeping staff followed proper cleaning techniques for cleaning and disinfecting resident rooms and high frequency touch areas (call lights, bed controls and light switches); -Ensure housekeeping staff were trained appropriately on housekeeping procedures; and, -Ensure surface disinfectant dwell times (how long surfaces remained wet with disinfectant) were adhered to. Findings include I. Professional reference Assadian O, Harbarth S, Vos M, et al. Practical Recommendations for Routine Cleaning and Disinfection Procedures in Healthcare Institutions: A Narrative Review. The Journal of Hospital Infection, (July 2021) 113:104-114, was retrieved on 6/6/24 from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2020-02-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored and served under sanitary conditions for one of one serving areas. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Food temperatures of cold food was held at the proper temperature to reduce the risk of food borne illness; -Disinfecting chemicals were maintained at appropriate parts per million (PPM); -Dented canned food items were not put in the rotation, ready to be used and served: -Sugar, flour and utensils were stored appropriately; and -Food preparation surfaces were properly sanitized in the bistro area. Findings include: I. Inadequate holding temperatures A. Professional reference The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2019) The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/DEHS_RetailFd_6CCR10102_RFFC_EffJan2019.pdf. It reads in pertinent part; The food shall have an initial temperature of 41 degree Fahrenheit (ºF) or less when removed from cold holding temperature control or 135°F…
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 · Fcited before2020-02-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 effectively follow an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection Specifically, the facility failed to: -Follow proper housekeeping protocols to prevent cross-contamination; -Ensure proper hand sanitation in rooms with residents with transmission based infections, and hand placement and hand hygiene when handling resident food; -Ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), including the changing of contaminating gloves, the donning and doffing of PPE and disposal of PPE in a room with a resident designated on isolation with contact precautions. -Create a complete program of infection surveillance, that investigated to determine the event of transmission, and causations to the spread of transmission based infections; and -Identify correlation between staff practices and the spread of 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.
- Potential for harm · E2020-02-13 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of five percent (%) or greater to include three residents (#105, #12 and #38). Specifically, the medication pass observation error rate was 16.67 percent, or five errors out of 30 opportunities for error. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Medication Administration policy, revised 11/26/19, was provided on 2/10/2020 at 3:22 p.m. by the clinical advocate (CA). The policy documented in pertinent part, Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician. Double check the amount of medication to be administered. Observe that the resident swallows oral drugs. Do not leave medications with the resident. II. Medication error for Resident #105 A. Record Review Resident #105 had physician's orders on the medication administration record (MAR) that documented: Metformin ER (extended release) 500 mg (milligram), give two tablets by mouth twice daily. B. Observation On 2/11/2020 at 8:09 a.m., licensed practical nurse…
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 · E2020-02-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with accepted professional standards, in two out of two medication rooms and three out of five medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Remove expired medications from medication rooms and carts to prevent the use of expired medications; -Date medications when opened; and -Ensure medications were labeled with the medication name, dose, strength, expiration date, appropriate instructions and precautions, and route of administration. Findings include: I. Professional references According to Novo Nordisk (January 2019) Storage information and travel tips for Novolog, retrieved 2/14/2020 from: https://www.rapidactinginsulin.com/novolog/using-novolog/storage-and-handling.html Novolog insulin, once opened, can be used up to 28 days. According to Lilly USA (January 2020) Humolog insulin, Storage and Disposal of vials, retrieved 2/14/2020 from: https://www.humalog.com Throw away…
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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a reasonable accommodation of needs for one (#9) of one out of 39 sample residents reviewed for preferences and needs. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a touch pad call light system was available to Resident #9 who had impaired function in the upper left and right hand and that his call light was within reach. Findings include: I. Resident #9 A. Resident status Resident #9, less than [AGE] years of age was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2020 computerized physician orders, diagnosis included history of falling, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage affecting right dominant side, need for assistance with personal care, anxiety disorder, unspecified, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, muscle weakness (generalized), polyosteoarthritis, unspecified and rheumatoid arthritis, unspecified. The 11/24/19 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident is…
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 before2020-02-13 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints imposed for staff convenience and not required to treat medical symptoms for one (#13) of one resident reviewed for restraints out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Perform an initial assessment and subsequent quarterly assessments for the use of a lap belt; -Obtain a physician's order with a specific medical diagnosis for the use of a lap belt; -Obtain a consent from the resident's medical durable power of attorney (MDPOA) prior to the use of a lap belt; -Develop a monitoring system for the safe utilization of a lap belt; and -Develop a care plan to reflect the interventions that addressed underlying problems that might be causing the symptoms, measures taken to systematically reduce or eliminate the need for the lap belt, and alternatives that were implemented prior to the use of the lap belt. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedures 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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the environment remained as free from accident hazards as possible for one (#99) of two residents reviewed out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the metal bar on the Hoyer lift did not injure Resident #99's shins during transfers, resulting in multiple abrasions. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedures The SkinTears - Abrasions and Minor Breaks, Care of policy, revised September 2019, was provided by the social services director (SSD) on 2/13/2020 at 4:15 p.m. The policy revealed the purpose was to guide the prevention and treatment of abrasions, skin tears and minor breaks in the skin. -Obtain a physician's order as needed and document the physician was notified in the medical record. Complete the non-pressure risk management report. -An abrasion was an area on the skin that had been damaged by friction, scraping, rubbing or trauma. A skin tear was the disruption of the epidermis…
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.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-02-21 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 two (#60 and #48) of seven residents reviewed for restraints out of 39 sample residents, were free from restraints. Specifically, - The facility failed to timely and appropriately assess functional status and risk for elopement of Resident #60, who resided on the secure unit, and had additionally wander prevention device, watchmate; and - The facility failed to ensure an assessment was completed prior to applying a bolster mattress and barrier to Resident #48's bed. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Nursing Home Abuse Guide, Physical Restraints on Elderly (2019) https://nursinghomeabuseguide.com/abuse-injuries/elderly-restraints/physical/ (retrieved 2/25/19): - Federal and state laws urge the use of alternatives in place of physical restraints. - Increased supervision and more specialized attention to suit each resident's needs can be among the most effective alternatives for reducing the need for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-02-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown origin were reported immediately, for one (#29) of three, out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to report Resident #29's injury of unknown origin to the administrator of the facility and to the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law. Cross reference F610- The facility failed to thoroughly investigate the injury of unknown origin. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Abuse policy, revised 9/26/13, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/18/19 at 4:00 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part, The facility will ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source, are reported immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious…
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 · D2019-02-21 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to have evidence all alleged violations of abuse and/or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown origin, were thoroughly investigated for one (#29) of three residents investigated for abuse out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown origin for Resident #29. Cross reference F609- The facility failed to report an abuse allegation. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Injuries of Unknown Origin policy, revised 9/27/13, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 2/21/19 at 10:00 a.m. The policy read in pertinent part, Initiate an internal investigation to determine if the cause of the injury is known and to rule out any physical abuse. During the investigation a summary of the findings and a conclusion should be reached to determine how the injury occurred and that physical abuse did not occur. If the cause of the injury cannot be determined, document a summary of the findings and…
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 · D2019-02-21 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 complete a timely comprehensive and accurate assessment for one (#18) of three out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to complete the resident's readmission to the facility comprehensive assessment after Resident #18 returned from a hospital with a significant change in condition. Findings include Professional reference According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, October 2018, pg. 2-22 and 2-23: The Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) is a comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed when the IDT has determined that a resident meets the significant change guidelines for either major improvement or decline. It can be performed at any time after the completion of an admission assessment, and its completion dates (MDS/CAA(s)/care plan) depend on the date that the IDT's determination was made that 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 · D2019-02-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#18) of four reviewed for care plans out of 39 sample residents had a timely revision of the person centered care plan. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the resident's comprehensive care plan was revised after a significant change of condition. Findings include Facility policy and procedure The Changes in Resident Condition policy, revised 9/11/17, was provided by the assistant administrator (ANHA) on 2/21/19. It read, in pertinent part, Changes in the resident status that affect the problem(s)/ goal(s) or approach on his/her plan of care are documented as revisions and communicated to the interdisciplinary (IDT) team. Examples of Clinical Condition Changes are such things as a Stage II pressure ulcer, onset or recurrent delirium, recent urinary tract infections, significant weight loss, falls, significant change in behaviors, resident is started on antibiotics for any type of infection, any change in resident from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-02-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 provide respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice, the resident's care plan and the resident's choice for one (#32) of one resident reviewed for supplemental oxygen use out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: - Ensure a current physician's order was in place for the resident's use of supplemental oxygen; - Fully develop a comprehensive care plan to address Resident #32's use and refusals of oxygen therapy. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #32, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2019 computerized physician orders (CPO), pertinent diagnoses included dementia, anxiety, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. The 12/12/18 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of five out of 15. The resident received oxygen therapy and hospice services.…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to FRONTLINE MANAGEMENT — 9 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NELSON, JILL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/01/1996 |
| BIDELL, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/01/1996 |
| FRONTIER MANAGEMENT INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/28/2025 |
| BAKER, ADAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2024 |
| CISNEROS, SUZANNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2017 |
| COOPER, STEPHEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2016 |
| DUNN, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2017 |
| GILHOOLEY, REBECCA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/07/2006 |
| GILMER, VICKY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| GONZALES, BENJAMIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| GUERRERO, SHANNON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2012 |
| HEADLEE, ADAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2020 |
| HERNANDEZ, BENJAMIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2025 |
| HOWE, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| JONES, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2024 |
| KALMAR, CINDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/07/2006 |
| KARGES, TERRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2015 |
| LANCASTER, ASHLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| LECHUGA-GARCIA, ASHLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/22/2023 |
| MUNOZ, BLANCA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/05/2022 |
| NEWTON, MICHELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2024 |
| ONG, EDISON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/04/2025 |
| ORBACK, HEATHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2024 |
| PLACENCIA, ELVIRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/22/2023 |
| SALAS, CHERISE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2024 |
| SPENCER, ANGELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/17/2023 |
| TRUJILLO, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| VELUSCEK, STEVEN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/28/2025 |
| CONTINUED CARE LTC PHARMACY COLORADO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2024 |
| HRTH,LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2024 |
| SUFFOLK MANAGEMENT LIMITED LIABILITY CO | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/03/1993 |
| WIPFLI LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| CARRIGLITTO, MATTHEW | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 58 rows in the source record cover these 33 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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.
About 71% 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 $845K 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
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 065211. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-06, 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.