Valley Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center, The
211 E 3rd Ave, Mancos, CO 81328 · For profit - Corporation · 110 certified beds · (970) 533-9031 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-10)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 4 to 3 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 | 7.3% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 4.7% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 89.5% | 8.8% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 2.6% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.6% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.9% | 13.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.3% | 11.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.1% | 94.7% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.0% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 21.2% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.8% | 20.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.6% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.1% | 75.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 7.4% | 20.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.0% | 12.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.90 | 1.38 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.18 | 1.74 | 1.80 | worse |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
49.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 48 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.9% 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 23 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 37% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 49.8%CMS range 38.9–60.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 6.0–17.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 60.9% | 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 | 43.5% | 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 | 56.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 110 beds and averages 54.5 residents a day — about 50% occupied, or roughly 56 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 2.81 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.50 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.77 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 2.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.97 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.57 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% 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 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-12-10 · 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 interviews, record review and observations, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accidents or hazards for one (#1) of three residents reviewed out of seven sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was provided transportation, by use of the facility vehicle, without injury. Resident #1, was admitted on was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of dementia, mild, with other behavioral disturbances, age-related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, abnormalities of the gait and mobility, need for assistance with personal care and adult failure to thrive. On 9/15/25 the resident was being transported to an appointment outside of the facility. Activities assistant (AS) #1 had to abruptly stop, which caused Resident #1's seatbelt to become unfastened and Resident #1 fell out of her wheelchair. Resident #1 sustained a fracture of her left femur which required surgery. Findings include:Record review, observations…
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.
- Actual harm · G2020-02-27 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with dementia received the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for one (#41) of five residents reviewed for dementia care of 26 sample residents. The facility was aware that Resident #41 had diagnoses of dementia with behavioral disturbance and insomnia. Since her admission on [DATE] she had wandered throughout the facility, particularly on the hall where she resided, and sometimes disturbed other residents by opening their bedroom doors at night without knocking and looking in on them. However, facility staff failed to intervene in a timely and appropriate manner to provide meaningful activities and person-centered redirection and engagement methods to identify root causes and address Resident #41's behavioral symptoms. Instead of providing closer supervision and implementing methods to engage the resident, and before attempting…
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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0573 — isolatedLet each resident or the resident's legal representative access or purchase copies of all the resident's records.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a copy of medical records were provided timely for one (#1) of two residents out of seven sample residents.Specifically, the facility failed to ensure medical records were provided timely upon request to Resident #1's representative.Findings include:I. Facility policy and procedure The Release of Information policy, revised November 2009, was provided by the clinical regional director on 9/10/25 at 3:21 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part, The resident may initiate a request to release such information contained in his or her records and charts to anyone he or she wishes. Such requests will be honored only upon the receipt of a written, signed, and dated request from the resident or representative. A resident may obtain photocopies of his or her records by providing the facility with at least a 48 hour advance notice of such request. II. Resident representative interviewResident #1's representative was interviewed on 9/10/25 at 2:09 p.m. The representative said she requested Resident #1's medical records from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised and appropriate for three (#1 and #3) of four residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans out of seven sample residents.Specifically, the facility failed to:-Ensure Resident #1's fall care plan was revised to include new interventions if needed to assist in the prevention of falls for 11 out the resident's 13 falls between 1/17/25 and 6/27/25; and,-Ensure Resident #3's care plan was revised to include new interventions if needed after the resident fell on 7/27/25.Findings include:I. Facility policy and procedure The Falls-Clinical Protocol policy, revised March 2018, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 9/10/25 at 8:01 p.m. via email. According to the fall policy, the staff and the physician would identify pertinent interventions to try to prevent falls and to address the risks of clinical significant consequences of the falls. The policy identified the staff would try various relevant…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-06-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, distributed and served under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure kitchen staff handled ready-to-eat foods in an appropriate sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination; and, -Ensure safe holding temperatures for food items were maintained. Findings include: I. Inappropriate handling of ready-to-eat foods A. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Regulations, effective 3/16/24, were retrieved on 7/1/24 from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/environment/food-regulations. It revealed in pertinent part, Food employees may not contact exposed, ready-to-eat food with their bare hands and shall use suitable utensils such as deli tissue, spatulas, tongs, single-use gloves, or dispensing equipment. B. Facility policy The Preventing Foodborne Illness - Employee Hygiene and Sanitary Practices policy, revised 11/2022, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 6/26/24 at 2:20 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Gloves are…
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 before2024-06-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were properly stored and labeled on three of five units. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure residents' topical medications were stored and locked in appropriate medication carts or medication storage rooms that were accessed only by authorized licensed personnel. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Medication Labeling and Storage policy and procedure, reviewed February 2023, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 6/26/24 at 2:20 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Compartments (including, but not limited to drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts and boxes) containing medications and biologicals are locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items are not left unattended if open or otherwise available to others. Medications are stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, carts or automatic dispensing systems. Each resident's medications are assigned to an individual cubicle, drawer or other…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, 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 on four of five units. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure residents' rooms were cleaned in a sanitary manner; -Ensure residents' personal care items were labeled and stored in a sanitary manner; and, -Ensure a urinary catheter was maintained in a sanitary manner. Findings include: I. Housekeeping failures A. Professional reference The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Environment Cleaning Procedures (5/4/23), was retrieved on 7/1/24 from https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/hcp/cleaning-global/procedures.html. It read in pertinent part, Proceed from cleaner to dirtier areas to avoid spreading dirt and microorganisms. Clean patient areas (patient zones) before patient toilets. B. Manufacturer's recommendations According to the Lysol Power and Fresh Multi-Surface Cleaner guidelines, undated,…
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 before2020-02-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were properly stored in one of one medication storage refrigerators. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure proper storage temperatures for medications and vaccines. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Medication policy, no date of inception or revision, provided by the corporate nurse (CN) on 2/26/2020 at 5:17 p.m. read, medications requiring refrigeration shall be stored in the medication room refrigerator. The refrigerator would be maintained according to the requirements of the Colorado Board of Pharmacy. II. Observations The facility medication storage refrigerator was inspected with the medication administration aide (MAA) on 2/26/2020 at 3:45 p.m. The internal temperature of the refrigerator was observed to be 32 degrees fahrenheit, which was confirmed with the staff member. She was unaware of the correct storage temperatures and said she would have to find out. She said the night shift staff were responsible for checking storage temperatures.…
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 · D2020-02-27 · 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 one (#24) of three residents reviewed for bathing and grooming received the necessary assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) of 26 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #24 received timely assistance with eye and facial cleanliness, adequate fingernail and oral care, and ensure his clothing was clean. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Activities of Daily Living policy and procedure, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator on 2/27/2020 at 2:00 p.m. It documented a program of ADLs was provided to residents to prevent disability and return residents to a maximum level of independence. During hygiene care, residents' self-image was maintained, equipment and instructions for mouth care, shaving, and hair care were provided, and frequent showers or baths were scheduled and assistance was provided when required. II. Resident #24 status Resident #24, age…
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 before2019-01-10 · 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 minimize the risk for foodborne illness in a highly susceptible population in one of one kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to follow industry standards for proper cleaning and sanitizing of kitchen equipment and utensils and to properly date mark and discard expired foods. Findings include: I. Inadequate sanitizing of equipment of utensils A. Professional references 1. According to the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, effective January 1, 2019, p. 73; food contact and non-food contact surfaces shall be clean to sight and touch and kept free of dust, dirt, food residue and other debris. In addition, details for cleaning and sanitizing specific to equipment and chemicals used by the facility included the following: a. Effective cleaning of equipment and utensils shall utilize manual or mechanical means with the use of appropriate detergents and wetting agents (p. 143). b. Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils should be cleaned and sanitized at the following times…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-01-10 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide 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 VI. Resident #12 A. Resident status Resident #12, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the 10/24/18 MDS assessment, diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, psychotic disorder other than schizophrenia, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and unspecified psychosis. The 10/24/18 MDS assessment revealed the resident had short- and long-term memory problems with severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. She had adequate hearing, vision, and unclear speech, and no psychosis behavioral symptoms or rejection of care. She was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene. The 7/25/18 comprehensive MDS assessment revealed the staff completed her activity preferences, which included listening to music and being around animals such as pets. B. Observations 1/07/19 -At 2:44 p.m. the resident was observed alone in her room in bed. A bingo activity was in progress and she did not attend. -At 5:04 p.m. the resident was observed in her…
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 before2019-01-10 · 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, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were properly stored in one of one medication storage refrigerator. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure vaccines were stored according to practice standards and manufacturer guidelines. Findings include: I. Professional standards According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Storage and Handling Toolkit ([DATE]), pages 8 - 15, retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/admin/storage/toolkit/storage-handling-toolkit.pdf on [DATE], included in pertinent part: Failure to store and handle vaccines properly can reduce vaccine potency, resulting in inadequate immune responses in patients and poor protection against disease. Do not store any vaccine in a dormitory style or bar-style combined refrigerator/freezer unit under any circumstances. These units have a single exterior door and an evaporator plate/cooling coil, usually located in an ice maker/freezer…
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.
- No harm found · C2019-01-10 · tag F0620 — widespreadNot require residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits, or pay privately as a condition of admission; and must tell residents what care they do not provide.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure they did not require residents to waive potential facility liability for loss of personal property for all residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that the language in the admission Agreement document did not release the facility from liability for the loss of residents' personal items. Findings include: I. Facility policy The facility Admission/readmission policy, undated, provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 1/8/19 at 3:00 p.m., read persons admitted to the facility were assisted by all nursing personnel and social services in a concerned and respectful manner. Residents were helped to retain as much control of their life as possible and to adjust to the losses incurred on entering a communal environment. II. Record review The admission Packet, revised 1/1/2019, under the section titled, Responsibilities for Personal Items documented the following: The undersigned understands that the facility provides safekeeping services for money and valuables of small size and agrees that the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-12-10
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 CENTENNIAL HEALTHCARE — 8 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CENTENNIAL I TBD HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/01/2022 |
| CENTENNIAL MN TR I | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/01/2022 |
| CENTENNIAL M TRUST II | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| CAPITAL FINANCE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2022 |
| GOTTLIEB, REFOEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2022 |
| SINGER, MEIR | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/01/2022 |
| GOTTS CONSULTING COLORADO LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2022 |
| MONARCO, ASHLEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/23/2025 |
| TURPEN, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2024 |
| CENTENNIAL MS TRUST I | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2022 |
| CENTENNIAL YF TRUST I | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 065306. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-27, 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.