North Shore Health & Rehab Facility
1365 W 29th St, Loveland, CO 80538 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (970) 667-6111 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2020
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567, F0569)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 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 | 25.3% | 13.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.8% | 4.7% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 3.4% | 1.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 16.5% | 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 | 2.6% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 29.6% | 13.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.6% | 11.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.9% | 94.7% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.7% | 21.2% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.7% | 20.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.6% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 75.0% | 75.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.0% | 20.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.4% | 12.1% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.44 | 1.38 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.81 | 1.74 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
64.3% 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 124 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.8% 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 47 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 11% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 64.3%CMS range 56.0–70.9 | 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 | 9.5%CMS range 7.0–13.4 | 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 | 63.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 70.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 61.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 | 97.6% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.9%CMS range 3.5–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.74 | 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 120 beds and averages 104.4 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.72 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-22 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify a resident's representative of changes in medication for one (#6) of seven residents out of 11 sample residents.Specifically, the facility failed to notify Resident #6's representative when the resident's donepezil (medication used to manage cognitive symptoms) was discontinued.Findings include:I. Facility policy and procedureThe Resident Change of Condition/Status policy, dated 4/11/25, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 4/21/26 at 5:12 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part, The facility must inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician and/or notify the resident's family member or legal representative when there is a change requiring such notification. Circumstances requiring notification include circumstances that require a need to alter treatment. This may include new treatment or discontinuation of current treatment. Competent individuals: the facility must still contact the resident's physician 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 · E2024-05-16 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure 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 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 mechanically altered diets had food prepared according to their diet order of level six soft and bite-sized texture as indicated on their meal tray cards. Findings include: I. Professional reference The International Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) (a tool to standardize mechanically altered diets and liquids) (January 2019), was retrieved on 5/21/24, from https://iddsi.org/Resources/Patient-Handouts read in pertinent part, Level six soft and bite-sized, for safety avoid these food textures that pose a choking risk for adults who need level six soft and bite-sized food: -Bread (no regular dry bread, sandwiches or toast of any kind). Use IDDSI level five minced and moist sandwich recipe to prepare bread; use pre-gelled 'soaked' breads that are very moist and gelled through the entire thickness; -Food…
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 before2024-05-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, interventions and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen. Specifically the facility failed to: -Ensure the high temperature dish washing machine functioned at the proper temperatures for one of two facility dish washing machines; -Ensure, for a high temperature dish washing machine, an irreversible registering surface temperature indicator (test strip) was present at the facility and readily accessible for measuring the utensil surface temperature; and -Ensure staff performed proper hand hygiene while plating and serving resident meals. Findings include: I. High temperature dish washing machine not at proper temperature and failure to monitor with an irreversible registering temperature indicator (test strip) A. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Regulations, (3/16/24), retrieved on 5/20/24 from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/environment/food-regulations, read in pertinent part, A warewashing machine and its auxiliary components shall be operated in accordance with 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 · D2024-05-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to assess, accurately document and provide treatment for one (#32) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers out of 31 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure the progress of Resident #32's pressure ulcers was documented consistently and accurately; -Identify Resident #32 had a pressure wound which had reopened on her coccyx; and, -Obtain appropriate physician's orders for wound care treatment for Resident #32's reopened coccyx pressure ulcer. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, European Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline, third edition, [NAME] Haesler (Ed.), EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA: 2019, retrieved on 5/23/24 from https://www.internationalguideline.com/guideline, Pressure ulcer classification is as follows: Category/Stage 1: Nonblanchable…
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 · D2024-05-16 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such 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 two (#32 and #1) of five residents reviewed for pain management out of 31 sample residents received timely, adequate pain control. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure pain was effectively managed during incontinence care for Resident #32; -Ensure Resident #32 was provided as needed (PRN) pain medication prior to brief changes per physician's orders; -Ensure staff consistently documented Resident #32's pain levels every shift; and, -Ensure individualized non-pharmacological interventions were documented for Resident #32 and Resident #1. Findings include: Facility Policy The Pain Management policy, revised on 5/3/23, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 5/17/24 at 5:36 p.m. It read in pertinent part: Pain is subjective and is what the resident says it is, existing when and where the resident says it does. All residents will be evaluated for pain by utilizing a pain evaluation tool in the electronic medical…
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 · D2024-05-16 · 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 record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications out of 31 sample residents were free from unnecessary medications. Specifically the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #1 had appropriate non-pharmacological interventions for behaviors initiated; -Ensure Resident #1 was monitored for side effects of a psychotropic medications; and, -Ensure Resident #1 was monitored consistently for behaviors to justify the use of psychotropic medications. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Psychopharmacological policy, revised 3/10/23, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 5/16/24 at 1:44 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Licensed nurses and additional staff will monitor and document any targeted behaviors that occur. The care plan will include the resident's focus and target behaviors for the medication. Realistic and measurable goals will be utilized and approaches will include alternatives to psychopharmacological…
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 before2024-05-16 · 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 maintain an infection control and prevention program designed to provide a sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections in one of three units. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Follow proper infection control processes for cleaning and disinfecting lifts and vital signs equipment on the Parkview unit; and, -Use proper infection control procedures during a vaccination clinic. Findings include: I. Professional reference The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Healthcare Facilities (2019), retrieved on 5/25/24 from https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/environmental-control/index.html, read in pertinent part, Careful cleaning of patient rooms and medical equipment contributes substantially to the overall control of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus…
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 before2020-03-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to follow an effective infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. Specifically, the facility failed to: - Implement a comprehensive program of infection surveillance to determine the event of transmission and causes of the spread of infections; - Identify, through surveillance, correlations between staff practices and the spread of infections; - Follow effective isolation precaution practices to prevent the potential spread of infection; - Prevent the potential for cross contamination during dining services; and, - Follow proper housekeeping and laundry protocols to prevent the potential for cross-contamination. Findings include: I. Facility policies and procedures A. The infection prevention and control program (IPCP) policy, revised December 2019, was provided on 2/13/2020 by the facility. According to the policy, 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 · E2020-03-10 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
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 five (# 6, #43, #61, #67, #85) of eight Medicaid funded residents reviewed, out of 54 sample residents, deposited the residents' personal funds in excess of $50.00 in an interest bearing account and credited all interest earned on the resident's funds to that account. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Allocate interest accrued to medicaid funded Resident #6, Resident #43, Resident #61, Resident #67, and Resident # 85 who had accounts with funds over $50.00 and under $100.00 for February 2020. I. Policy and procedure The undated, Personal Funds Account policy, was received from the business office manager (BOM) on 3/10/2020 at 12:28 p.m. The policy did not include information on interest accrued by any resident with a fund balance over $100.00, or for Medicaid funded residents with balances over $50.00. The policy did document the facility will provide each resident or the resident's legal representative with a Resident Trust Agreement. 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 · E2020-03-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with accepted professional standards, in two out of three medication carts and three out of three medication rooms. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Date medications when opened; -Discard expired medications; and, -Ensure Medications were stored at appropriate temperatures. Findings include: I. Professional references According to Novo Nordisk (2019) How to store Levemir, retrieved 2/28/2020 from: https://www.levemir.com/levemir-flextouch-and-vial.html Levemir insulin pens, dispose 42 days after opening, even if there is insulin left in it. According to Lilly (1/2020) Basaglar, instructions for use, retrieved 3/10/2020 from: https://www.basaglar.com/hcp/efficacy-safety/percentage-a1c-reduction Basaglar insulin pens, throw out the open pen after 28 days even if insulin is left in the pen. According to the FDA ( Food and Drug Administration) (9/2015), Tubersol package…
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 9 citations
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-10 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure two (#71 and #81) out of two residents who were Medicaid funded out of 54 sample residents were notified when account balances were within $200 of the eligibility resource limit. Specifically, the facility failed to notify Resident #71 and Resident #81 they were approaching the eligibility resource limit for Medicaid. Findings include: I. Policy and procedure The undated, Personal Funds Account policy, was received from the business office manager (BOM) on 3/10/2020 at 12:28 p.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, The maximum amount in the account at any given time will be $2000.00. The policy did not include that Medicaid funded residents would be notified when account balances were within $200.00 of their eligibility limit to avoid losing their eligibility. The Long Term Care-Medicaid: How it Works brochure was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/6/2020 at approximately 9:00 a.m. The undated brochure was included as…
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 · D2020-03-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for one (#23) of two residents reviewed for abuse out of 54 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide sufficient interventions to protect Resident #23 from a physical abuse altercation with Resident #64. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedures The undated Abuse Prevention policy was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 3/10/2020 at 3:54 p.m. The policy revealed: - The facility did not condone resident abuse by anyone, including other residents. - Providing a safe environment for the resident was one of the most basic and essential duties of this facility. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including other residents. - If a resident experienced a behavior change resulting in aggression toward other residents, the facility would arrange for a psychiatric evaluation of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-10 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#29) of four residents reviewed for activities of 54 sample residents had an ongoing program of activities based on comprehensive assessments, care plan and resident preferences. Specifically, the facility failed to properly develop and implement an individualized plan of activities, based on Resident #29's interests, to help him adjust to his unexpected admission to the facility. Findings include: I. Policy and procedure The Activity Assessment policy and procedure, dated 4/1/19, was provided by the activities director on 3/10/2020 at 2:30 p.m. The policy revealed, in pertinent part, the facility had a person-centered program to engage each resident. Staff, the resident and the resident's family were to work together to obtain personalized information about the resident's interests, routines and hobbies. This information was to be used to enhance person centered care and meaningful day to day interactions with the resident.…
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 before2019-03-05 · 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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare and serve food in a sanitary manner in one of one facility kitchens, and two of two unit kitchenettes. Specifically, the facility failed to follow accepted food service industry standards to minimize the risk of foodborne illness in a highly susceptible population in the following practices: -Proper glove use and hand hygiene; -Reheating of foods in the microwave oven; -Sanitization of probe thermometer; and, -Monitoring of temperatures in one of four unit resident food refrigerators. Findings include: I. Failure to use proper glove use and hand hygiene A. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations (CRFERR), revised January 2019, read in pertinent part, Employees prevent bare hand contact with ready-to-eat food by properly using 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. Single-use gloves shall be used for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2019-03-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Manufacturer recommendations were followed regarding disinfectant surface contact times; -Proper process for resident room cleaning was followed (clean to dirty); and, -A water management program to prevent the transmission of legionella was developed and implemented. Findings include: I. Failure to follow proper processes for resident room cleaning and disinfection A. Professional reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cleaning and Disinfecting Environmental Services in Healthcare Facilities (February 2017), retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/index.html The CDC recommendations read in pertinent part, Follow manufacturer's instructions for proper use for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-03-05 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide services to achieve the highest practicable state of wellbeing for one (#70) of one resident reviewed for accommodations of needs out of 40 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to promote toileting in a dignified manner for Resident #70 as evidence by: -Not ensuring the residents needs were accommodated for a larger bathroom to prevent a decline in her toileting status; -Not ensuring the occupational therapist recommendations were followed; -Not ensuring the certified nurse aide followed the residents care plan; and, -Not ensuring staff followed up with the resident after she was discovered to be incontinent with a bladder study or toileting program to promote and maintain bladder and bowel status. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #70, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2019 computerized physician orders (CPO), pertinent diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following…
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 · D2019-03-05 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to and the facility promote/facilitate self-determination of resident choices for one (#42) of one out of 40 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure the resident received a minimum of two baths each week according to the resident ' s preferences. Findings include: I. Facility policies The Bathing policy, not dated, was provided by the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 3/4/19 at 11:14 a.m. The policy revealed tub baths and/or showers would be scheduled for all residents to match their preferences. If a resident refused their bath they would be re-approached later. The facility staff would to the best of their ability to accommodate the resident ' s preference regarding the amount of baths and the time of day the baths or showers were provided. II. Resident status Resident #42, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the January 2019 computerized physician orders (CPO)…
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 · D2019-03-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to report an alleged violation of abuse to the State survey and certification agency in accordance with State law, for one (#47) of one residents reviewed for abuse out of 40 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to report allegations of verbal abuse to the state agency. Findings include: I. Facility standards A copy of the Abuse Prevention policy and procedure, no revised date, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/27/19 at 9:07 a.m. It read in part , Verbal abuse: Is defined as the use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability. Examples of verbal abuse include but not limited to, threats of harm and saying things to frighten a resident . and .The administrator/Designee will report to the following as appropriate or required by regulation:…
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 · D2019-03-05 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#258, and #24) of five out of 40 sample residents, who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Resident #258 was provided with meal assistance according to the plan of care; and -Resident #24 was provided with timely toileting assistance. Findings include: I. Resident #258 A. Resident status Resident #258, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the March 2019 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included muscle weakness, insomnia, macular degeneration and dementia. At the time of the survey, the resident had not been in the facility long enough for minimum data set (MDS) assessment to be completed. According to the 2/13/19 admission social service note, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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
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 065129. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-05-16, 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.