Neurorestorative Colorado
5945 S Wright St, Littleton, CO 80127 · For profit - Corporation · 36 certified beds · (303) 390-3000 Medicare only — no Medicaid
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
- the CMS record shows $13,406 in federal fines (most recent 2023-08-31)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 |
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 | 11.9% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 4.7% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.4% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 8.8% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.4% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.2% | 11.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.4% | 94.7% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.8% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.1% | 21.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 10.0% | 1.6% | 1.4% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 36 beds and averages 17.0 residents a day — about 47% occupied, or roughly 19 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 9.21 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.47 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 5.01 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 9.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 9.30 on weekdays — 3% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.51 to 2.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-08-31 · 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 resident environment remained free from accidents hazards as was possible and that each resident had adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (#15) of one resident reviewed for accidents and hazards out of 17 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #15 did not receive first/second degree burns to both thighs during the use of electrical stimulation in a physical therapy session; -Ensure Resident #15 had a physician order in place for use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES); and -Ensure the therapy care plan documented therapy use of NMES for Resident #15. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Physical Therapeutic Modalities policy and procedure, undated, received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/31/23 at 2:51 p.m. revealed in pertinent part: Scope: therapy staff physical therapist to facilitate various therapeutic treatments related to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-05-01 · 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 store, prepare and distribute food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen and nourishment refrigerator/freezer. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure time and temperature control food was labeled, dated and disposed of timely. Findings include: I. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Regulations, (3/16/24) and retrieved on 5/6/25 read in pertinent part, Commercially processed food: open and hold cold, refrigerated, ready-to-eat time/temperature control for safety food prepared and packaged by a food processing plant shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a food establishment and if the food is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded, the day the original container is opened in the food establishment shall be counted as day one and the day or date marked by the food establishment may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date…
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 · E2025-05-01 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure accurate assessments, informed risks, and ongoing monitoring was in place for three (#1, #13 and #6) of six residents with bed rails out of 20 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure risks of bed rails were explained to Resident #1 or the resident' s representatives prior to the initiation of the bed rails; -Ensure bed rail assessments were accurately completed for Resident #1, Resident #6 and Resident #13; -Ensure consent was obtained for the use of a bed rail from Resident #1; and, -Ensure ongoing monitoring of bed rails in use was completed for Resident #1, Resident #6 and Resident #13. Findings include: I. Resident #1 A. Resident status Resident #1, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included surgical aftercare on the skin, pressure ulcers, traumatic subdural hemorrhage (brain injury where blood accumulates between 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 · E2025-05-01 · tag F0800 — patternProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
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 provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable and well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences for each resident. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide a balanced menu for residents; -Ensure Resident #5 received a variety of pureed dessert options; -Ensure international dysphagia diet standardization initiative (IDDSI) standards were utilized for production of IDDSI modified texture diet orders; and, -Ensure Resident #18 received a minced and moist level five texture diet instead of a pureed diet. Findings include: I. Professional reference The International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) minced and moist level five patient handout (2019) and retrieved 5/8/25, read in pertinent part, Meat is served finely minced or chopped to 4 millimeter (mm) lump size served in a thick, smooth, non-pouring sauce or gravy. Vegetables are cooked, finely mashed or use a blender to finely chop it into to 4 mm…
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 · E2025-05-01 · tag F0813 — patternHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
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 implement their policy regarding the use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Implement the facility policy for food brought by visitors and ensure food that was kept in resident's refrigerators had safe and sanitary storage; and, -Ensure the residents personal refrigerator temperatures were monitored correctly for appropriate temperatures. Findings include: I. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Regulations, (3/16/24) were retrieved on 5/6/25. It read in pertinent part, Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, time and temperature control for safety food shall be maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or less. (3-501.16) The day or date marked by the food establishment may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on food safety. (3-501.17) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food code (3/27/23) were…
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 · D2025-05-01 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
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 residents on a pureed diet out of 20 sample residents received food and fluids prepared in a form designed to meet his or her needs. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure residents who were prescribed pureed texture diets were served food that was prepared according to their diet order as indicated on their meal tray cards. Findings include: I. Professional reference The International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) Pureed Audit Tool (September 2020) retrieved 5/6/25 read in pertinent part, Critical appearance of pureed food: no lumps, food slides smoothly and easily between fingers. A puree needs to be able to be put in the mouth and swallowed whole. No chewing and no bolus (a soft mass of chewed food) formation skills should be needed to eat this. II. Meal observation During a continuous observation on 4/30/25, beginning at 11:55 a.m. and ending at 12:18 p.m., the following was observed during the meal preparation and service in the kitchen: The posted menu was lazy stuff…
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 · D2025-05-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease on one of two units. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were followed during wound care for Resident #1. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDRO)'s, (4/2/24), retrieved on 5/5/25 from https://www.cdc.gov/long-term-care-facilities/hcp/prevent-mdro/PPE.html, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of resistant organisms that employ target gown and glove use during high contact resident activities. EBP may be indicated (when contact precautions do not otherwise apply) for residents with any of the following: wounds or indwelling medical devices,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 implement policies and procedures related to pneumococcal vaccinations for one (#5) of five residents out of 20 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide the pneumococcal vaccination to Resident #5. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2022, retrieved on 5/6/25, from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-combined-schedule.pdf, in pertinent part, For those over the age of 65 who meet age requirements and lack documentation of vaccination, or lack evidence of past infection was: One (1) dose PCV15 followed by PPSV23 or one (1) dose PCV20. II. Resident #5 A. Resident status Resident #5, over age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included a history of intracranial injury and subdural…
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 · F2023-08-31 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to employ a director of food and nutrition services with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service for 19 census residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the business office manager (BOM) who was in charge of the kitchen services, had sufficient qualifications for this position. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedures The Dietary and Food Kitchen Supervisor policy, effective date of 2/12/19, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/31/23 at 12:42 p.m. The policy revealed the kitchen supervisor was responsible for providing the day to day direction to kitchen staff, and overseeing food preparation. The supervisor was also responsible for the distribution of meals to residents served; maintained the cleanliness of the kitchen; ensured all quality assurance tasks were completed; and ensured compliance with local, state/federal regulations as well as company policies. The minimum qualifications for this position included 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 before2023-08-31 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to meet all the requirements for the provision of hospice care for one (#9) of one resident reviewed for hospice services out of 17 sample residents. Specifically the facility failed to: -Ensure a contract was signed between the facility and the hospice agency; -Ensure a hospice care plan was initiated for Resident #9 determining who was responsible for resident care; and -Ensure there was a medical diagnosis for hospice services. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Hospice protocol, dated 3/4/2020, received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/30/23 at 9:43 a.m., revealed in pertinent part, To ensure that all residents receiving hospice services have a plan of care that has a comprehensive plan of care that specifies delineation of services for the facility and the hospice company and to ensure all hospice members are trained on the facility policies and procedures. Procedure: an order for hospice services should be entered…
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 before2020-02-12 · 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 was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions in one of one kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Appropriate hand hygiene was done by food service staff; and, -The cutting boards were free from deep scratches and stains making them an uncleanable surface. Findings include: I. Improper hand hygiene A. Professional references Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, effective 1/1/19, section 2-301.12 immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food, clean equipment utensils, and unwrapped single, service and single use articles and: food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms as specified under 2-301.12 immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food clean equipment and utensils, and unwrapped single, service and single service articles and: (A) After touching bare human body parts other than clean hands and clean, exposed portions of arms; (B)…
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 · D2020-02-12 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days for two (#22 and #26) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications out of 17 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to discontinue a PRN psychoactive medication after 14 days without a physician's rationale for Resident #22, and Resident #26. Findings include I. Resident #22 A. Resident status Resident #22, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2020 CPO, diagnoses included diffuse traumatic brain injury, traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, memory deficit, and cognitive social or emotional deficit. According to the 1/24/2020 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was not administered the brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The MDS documented the resident ' s cognitive skills for daily decision making was moderately impaired. The resident had mild depression with the resident scoring…
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 before2020-02-12 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the hospice services provided meet professional standards and principles that applied to individuals providing services in the facility for one (#10) of one resident reviewed for hospice services out of 17 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Have a written agreement to ensure Resident #10, had a written plan of care which included both the most recent hospice plan of care and a description of the services furnished by the long term care (LTC) facility; and, -Ensure that the LTC facility staff provide orientation regarding the policies and procedures of the facility, including patient rights, appropriate forms, and record keeping requirements, to hospice staff furnishing care to LTC residents. Findings include: I. Resident #10 A. Resident status Resident #10, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2019 CPO, diagnoses included pressure ulcer of sacral region,…
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
$13,406 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $13,406 — penalty dated 2023-08-31
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 NEURORESTORATIVE — 5 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 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAREMERIDIAN LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/15/2008 |
| NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/22/2004 |
| CELTIC INTERMEDIATE CORP. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/08/2019 |
| NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/29/2006 |
| NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/22/2000 |
| NATIONAL MENTOR LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/06/2002 |
| KULURIS, BRUCE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/17/2018 |
| COHEN, BRETT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/14/2015 |
| DUFFY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2017 |
| GLADITSCH, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/01/2020 |
| MARTIN, GINA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| MCKINNEY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/21/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Colorado Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 065402. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-01, 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.