Coal Creek Post Acute & Assisted Living
329 Exempla Cir, Lafayette, CO 80026 · For profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (720) 639-2200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (23) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- nursing-staff turnover (62%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 improved from 1 to 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 | 3.8% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 4.7% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 21.4% | 8.8% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 12.5% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.5% | 11.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.4% | 21.2% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 38.5% | 20.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 60.9% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.9% | 20.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.0% | 12.1% | 12.0% | typical |
§ 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.
61.4% 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 174 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 79.7% 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 74 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 1.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 55% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through the weekend. 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 | 61.4%CMS range 53.5–67.9 | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 6.8–13.3 | 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 | 79.7% | 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 | 75.7% | 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 | 54.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 96.9% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 1.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.5–10.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.91 | 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 70 beds and averages 58.7 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 5.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.06 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.06 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 5.16 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.84 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.19 to 0.76 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 62% is well above 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.
23 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 12 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2024-11-13 · 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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was free from accident hazards and adequate supervision was provided for one (#3) of three residents reviewed out of nine sample residents. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for rehabilitation after surgery on her back. Upon admission, the resident was assessed for fall risk and was identified as a high risk for falls. However, the baseline care plan, initiated on 10/11/24, failed to identify the resident was at risk for falls and person-centered interventions were not put in place to prevent falls for Resident #3. On 10/12/24 Resident #3 sustained a fall which resulted in a laceration to her head and required transportation to the emergency department for further evaluation and staples to close the laceration. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Fall Management policy, reviewed September 2012, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/13/24. The policy revealed 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 before2026-06-03 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from any significant medication errors for one (#4) of six residents reviewed out of 18 sample residents.Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4 did not receive Resident #11's medications in addition to his own medications.Findings include:Record review and interviews confirmed the facility corrected the deficient practice prior to the onsite investigation on 6/1/26 to 6/3/26, resulting in the deficiency being cited as past noncompliance, with a correction date of 12/26/25.I. Situation of failure to administer medications as orderedResident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a computerized physician's order (CPO) for his medications, which he received correctly on 12/23/25 and 12/24/25. On the morning of 12/25/25, Resident #4 received his medications, plus six medications belonging to Resident #11. On 12/25/25 Resident #4 was transferred to a local hospital, unrelated to the incorrect medication…
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 · F2025-08-21 · 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 main kitchen.Specifically, the facility failed to:-Ensure ready-to-eat foods were handled in a sanitary manner to prevent cross-contamination; and, -Ensure safe and appropriate storage of food items in the main kitchen walk-in refrigerator. Findings include:I. Failed to ensure ready-to-eat foods were handled in a sanitary mannerA. Professional referenceThe Colorado Retail Food Establishment Regulations, (3/16/24), were retrieved on 8/25/25. It revealed in pertinent part, Food employees may not contact exposed, ready-to-eat food with their bare hands and shall use suitable utensils such as deli tissue, spatulas, tongs, single-use gloves, or dispensing equipment. If used, single-use gloves shall be used for only one task such as working with ready-to-eat food or with raw animal food, used for no other purpose, and discarded when damaged or soiled, or when interruptions occur in the operation. (3-301.11)B. Facility policy 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 · Ecited before2025-08-21 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a dignified existence for four (#3, #28, #72 and #73) of 24 residents out of 36 sample residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to:-Speak with Resident #3, Resident #28, Resident #72 and Resident #73 respectfully while providing care to the residents; and,-Ensure residents were not discussed by staff in areas where the conversations could be overheard by others.Findings include:I. Facility policy and procedureThe Dignity policy and procedure, revised August 2009, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/21/25 at 12:30 pm. It revealed in pertinent part, Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to: be informed about what rights and responsibilities he or she has; privacy and confidentiality and voice grievances 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 · Ecited before2025-08-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention and control programs (IPCP) were maintained and followed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections on two of two units. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff wore the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing direct care for Resident #65, Resident #62 and Resident #29, who were on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP).Findings include:I. Professional referenceAccording to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs), retrieved on 8/25/25 from https://www.cdc.gov/long-term-care-facilities/hcp/prevent-mdro/PPE.html, It read in pertinent part,Enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high…
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 · D2025-08-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure accurate medical records were kept for one (#28) of five residents out of 36 sample residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain accurate records for Resident #28 of pain reassessments and foley catheter care in the electronic medical record (EMR). Findings include:I. Professional referenceAccording to [NAME], P.A. and [NAME], A.G. et.al., (2021), Fundamentals of Nursing, 10 edition, pp 261 and 1067. Assessment is a continuous process that occurs each time you interact with a patient. It involves the collection of new data. Reassessment is not the same as evaluating care or determining a patient's response to an intervention. Instead, it is the gathering of additional information to ensure that the plan of care is still complete, current, and appropriate. Analgesics should be initiated at the lowest effective dose and titrated to achieve pain control with minimal adverse effects; this requires frequent…
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 · D2025-08-21 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement policies and procedures related to COVID-19 immunizations for two (#29 and #62) of five residents reviewed for immunizations out of 36 sample residents.Specifically, the facility failed to offer Resident #29 and Resident #62 the COVID-19 vaccination. Findings include:I. Professional referenceAccording to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), COVID-19 guidelines (revised 1/7/25), retrieved on 8/25/25 from https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html. Everyone ages six months and older should get a 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccine helps protect you from severe illness, hospitalization, and death. It is especially important to get your 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine if you are age [AGE] and older, are at risk for severe COVID-19, or have never received a COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine protection decreases over time, so it is important to get your 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine.II. Resident #29 A.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that professional standards of practice were followed during medication administration for two (#9 and #8) of three residents out of nine sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #9 and Resident #8 received medications as scheduled according to the physician's orders. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to [NAME], P.A., [NAME], A.G., et.al., Fundamentals of Nursing, 10 ed. (2020), E.[NAME], St. Louis Missouri, page 606-607, retrieved on 11/21/24, It read in pertinent part, Take appropriate actions to ensure the patient receives medication as prescribed and within the times prescribed and in the appropriate environment. Professional Standards such as nursing scope and standards of practice apply to the activity of medication administration. To prevent medication errors, follow the seven rights of medication administration consistently every time you administer medications. Many medication errors 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 · Dcited before2024-11-13 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#4) of three residents out of nine sample residents were free of significant medication errors. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was administered his Parkinson's medication per the physician orders. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the carbidopa/levodopa dosing instructions, retrieved from https://www.goodrx.com/carbidopa-levodopa/dosage on 11/21/24, A combination of two medications: carbidopa and levodopa. Levodopa replaces dopamine, which improves symptoms of Parkinson's disease. And carbidopa helps levodopa stick around longer in the body. If you miss a dose of carbidopa/levodopa, take the medication as soon as you remember. But if you remember when you' re already close to taking your next dose, skip the missed one. Don' t take more than one carbidopa/levodopa dose at a time. Doubling up on doses can be dangerous and lead to more side effects, such as movement problems and mood changes.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-27 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to promote and maintain resident dignity by providing care in a dignified, respectful and individualized manner for three (#1, #5 and #6) of three residents out of 12 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #1 and Resident #6 were treated with dignity and respect when they asked for care assistance; and, -Ensure Resident #5, a resident with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, was provided a dignified experience of receiving sufficient care to maintain good personal health and hygiene. Findings included: I. Facility policy The Dignity policy, revised February 2021, was provided by the corporate nurse consultant (CNC) on 8/27/24 at 11:10 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times. 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 before2024-02-29 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect for two (#12 and #133) of five residents reviewed for dignity and respect out of 18 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #12 was assisted during meal times in a dignified manner; and, -Ensure Resident #133 was treated with dignity and respect when she requested a cup of coffee. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Dignity policy, revised February 2021, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/29/24 at 1:03 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part, Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times. Individual needs and preferences of the resident are identified through the assessment process. Staff speak respectfully to residents at all…
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 12 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 who entered the facility with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion for one (#12) of five residents reviewed for range of motion out of 18 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #12 was assessed for a restorative program for her contracted right hand. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Prevention of Decline in Range of Motion policy, revised March 2022, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/29/24 at 1:03 p.m. The policy stated in pertinent part, The facility in collaboration with the medical director, director of nurses, and as appropriate, physical/occupational therapy consultant shall establish and utilize a systematic approach for prevention of decline in range of motion, including the assessment, appropriate care planning, and preventative care. II.…
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 before2024-02-29 · 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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received respiratory treatment as ordered for two (#137 and #191) of five residents reviewed for supplemental oxygen use out of 18 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for the administration of oxygen for Resident #137 and Resident #191. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Oxygen Administration policy, revised October 2010, was provided on 2/27/24 by the nursing home administrator (NHA). It read in pertinent part, The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure and review the physician orders or the facility protocol for oxygen administration. II. Resident #137 A. Resident status Resident #137, over age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease, systolic congestive heart…
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 · D2024-02-29 · 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 observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were properly stored, secured and labeled in accordance with accepted professional standards for two of two medication storage rooms. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure medication storage refrigerators were within acceptable parameters for proper medication storage; -Ensure medication storage refrigerator temperatures were monitored and documented consistently; -Ensure a Schedule IV controlled medication was properly stored in a locked, permanently affixed compartment in the medication storage refrigerator; and, -Ensure expired medications were properly disposed of. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Storage of Medications policy, revised November 2022, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/29/24 at 1:03 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part, Drug containers that have missing, incomplete, improper, or incorrect labels are returned to the pharmacy for proper labeling before storing. Discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 received and the facility provided food that accommodated resident preferences for one (#12) of three residents reviewed for food preferences out of 18 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was provided with a vegetarian diet per her preference. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Resident Food Preferences policy, revised July 2017, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/29/24 at 1:03 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part, Individual food preferences will be assessed upon admission and communicated to the interdisciplinary team. Modification to diet will only be ordered with the resident's or representative's consent. Nursing staff will document the resident's food and eating preferences in the care plan. II. Resident status Resident #12, age over 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses…
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 before2024-02-29 · 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 staff interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (#3, and #9) of five residents out of 18 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure transmission-based precautions were implemented for Resident #3 and #9. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Transmission-Based (Isolation) Precautions policy, undated, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/29/24 at 1:03 p.m. The policy stated in pertinent part, It is our policy to take appropriate precautions to prevent transmission of pathogens, based on the pathogens' modes of transmission. Contact precautions refers to measures that are intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the resident of the resident's environment.…
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 · E2019-11-25 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review; the facility failed to honor resident choices for six ( #243, #246, #27, #29, #93, and #193 ) out of 25 resident's reviewed for self-determination. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Residents #243,#246, #27, #29, #93, and #193 received showers according to their choice of frequency. Findings include: Cross-reference F725 failure to provide sufficient staffing. I. Facility policy and procedure The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) policy, revised 11/1/19, was provided by the Clinical Regional Consultant (CRC) on 11/25/19. It read, in pertinent part, Based on the comprehensive assessment of a patient and consistent with the patient's needs and choices, the Center must provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a patient's abilities in activities of daily living do not diminish unless circumstances of the individual's clinical condition demonstrate that such diminution was unavoidable. Activities of daily living (ADLs) include: Hygiene-…
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 · E2019-11-25 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 sufficient nursing staff to ensure the residents received the care and services they required to achieve their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure enough staff were available to adequately care for the resident as residents felt and expressed their activities of daily living (ADLs) of toileting assistance, transferring, showers, and overall call light response, were met and addressed in a timely manner. -Cross-reference F561, failure to honor resident ' s choice regarding showers. I. Resident interviews Resident #194 was interviewed on 11/19/19 at 9:40 a.m. She said she often had to wait 20 to 30 minutes to use the restroom after putting on her call light. Resident #5 was interviewed on 11/19/19 at 10:19 a.m. He said he believed the facility did not have enough staff everyday. He said depending on the time of day and the number of staff available, he often had to wait a long time for his call light to be answered. He said he was told by a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-11-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure care for residents was provided in a manner and in an environment that maintained or enhanced the residents' dignity and respect in full recognition of their individuality for one (#102) resident of three residents reviewed for dignity out of 24 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Address resident in her preferred way; and -Provide Resident #102 with a dignified dining experience in her room while she was eating lunch. I. Resident #102 A. Resident status Resident #102, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2019 computerized physician orders (CPO), pertinent diagnoses included lumbar fracture, multiple rib fractures and dementia without behaviors. The 11/14/19 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15. She required limited assistance of one person with most activities of daily living (ADLs), 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 · D2019-11-25 · 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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan for one (# 97) resident out of three sample residents was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #97's care plan was updated with new risks and interventions after resident's fall on 11/18/19. Findings include: I. Resident #97 A. Resident status Resident #97, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2019 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, paraplegia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and insomnia. The minimum data set (MDS) assessment for the resident was not completed. Resident's brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score was not conducted. During the interview the resident was able to answer simple questions, he was oriented to place and situation. Resident #97 was using a manual wheelchair for ambulation. B. Record review According to the physician note…
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 · D2019-11-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#40 and #20) residents reviewed of five sample residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice out of 24 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Routinely monitor the surgical incision on the back, and timely communicate changes in incision to the physician for Resident #40. Resident developed purulent drainage from the wound and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation; and, -Complete skin assessments timely, and to monitor bruising and abrasions for Resident #20. Findings include: I. Facility policies and procedures The skin assessment policy was requested from the director of nursing (DON) on 11/21/19. She provided the policy for Nursing Assessment. The policy did not include any information regarding skin assessment and surgical wound care treatments. The Nursing Assessments policy, revised 11/1/19, was provided by the Regional Nurse Consultant on 11/25/19. It…
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 before2019-11-25 · 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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice, for one (#195) of one resident reviewed for supplemental oxygen use out of 25 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure staff followed current physician's order for use of oxygen; -Obtain orders to establish parameters to maintain acceptable oxygen levels; -Obtain orders to establish why the resident required oxygen to include liter flow rate when Resident #195 was below the appropriate saturation levels; -Ensure the care plan included specific oxygen use instructions for staff to follow; and, -Ensure the resident maintained safe oxygen saturation levels. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The respiratory management policy and procedure, provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 11/25/19, revealed, in pertinent part, Patients will be assessed for the need for respiratory services as part of the nursing…
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 · D2019-11-25 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#97) of five residents reviewed out of 25 sample residents were reviewed by interdisciplinary team after pharmacy submitted monthly recommendations. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Timely communicate/deliver all pharmacy recommendations to the physician for review, and -Follow up with the physician regarding the pharmacist recommendations for Resident #97. I. Resident #97 A. Resident status Resident #97, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2019 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, paraplegia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and insomnia. The minimum data set (MDS) assessment for the resident was not completed. Resident ' s brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score was not conducted. During the interview resident was able to answer simple questions, he was oriented to place and situation. B. Record review A review of the physician…
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. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-12-11 for 5 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PACS GROUP — 274 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 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 273 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 273; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PANTHER MASTER TENANT, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/2023 |
| PROVIDENCE GROUP NH, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/2023 |
| ESFAHANI, REZA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/01/2015 |
| BADER, CARLY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/01/2023 |
| APT, FREDERICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| HANCOCK, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| JERGENSEN, JOSHUA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| MITCHELL, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
2 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.
This home reported $81K 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 065414. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-21, 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.