Casey's Pond Senior Living
2855 Owl Hoot Trl, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 · Non profit - Corporation · 66 certified beds · (970) 879-8855 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2024
- a high number of inspection citations overall (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- nursing-staff turnover (62%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- 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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 3.7% | 13.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.6% | 4.7% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.4% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.0% | 1.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.1% | 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 | 4.0% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.4% | 13.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.7% | 11.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.7% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.1% | 3.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.5% | 21.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.4% | 20.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.5% | 1.6% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.4% | 75.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.6% | 20.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.3% | 12.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.78 | 1.38 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.94 | 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.
53.8% 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 56 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.5% 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 44 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 53.8%CMS range 44.9–62.4 | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 6.0–15.4 | 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 | 54.5% | 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 | 43.2% | 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 | 52.3% | 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 | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.2% | 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 | 7.0%CMS range 3.6–15.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.73 | 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 66 beds and averages 50.8 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.37 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.41 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 3.69 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.64 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 62% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
20 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · 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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for one (#26) of two residents reviewed for abuse out of 25 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to protect Resident #22 from sexual abuse by Resident #26. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Abuse Non-Tolerance policy, dated October 2022, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/18/24. It read in pertinent part, Residents and clients must be free from abuse by anyone, including associates, other residents or clients, consultants or volunteers, family members or legal guardians, friends or other individuals. Sexual abuse includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual coercion or sexual assault. Capacity and consent: Residents and clients have the right to engage in consensual sexual activity. However, if the community has reason to suspect that a resident may not have the capacity to consent to sexual activity, the community must take steps to ensure…
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 before2024-03-21 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide services in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to follow accepted standards of practice for medication administration by pre-pouring medications prior to confirming the resident was ready and available for medication administration. Findings include: I. Professional references Nursing rights of medication administration, updated on 9/5/22, was retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560654/ on 3/22/24 at 9:00 a.m. It read in pertinent part: 'Right time'-administering medications at a time that was intended by the prescriber. Often, certain drugs have specific intervals or window periods during which another dose should be given to maintain a therapeutic effect or level. A guiding principle of this 'right' is that medications should be prescribed as closely to the time as possible, and nurses should not deviate from this time by more than half an hour to avoid consequences such as altering bioavailability or other chemical mechanisms. Long Term…
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 · D2024-03-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#7 and #49) of four residents out of 25 sample residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #7's portable oxygen concentrator was turned on while she was out of the building at an appointment; and, -Ensure Resident #49 was assisted with removing her cervical collar (c-collar) during meal times. Findings include: I. Resident #7 A. Resident status Resident #7, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (shortness of breath) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) ( airflow blockage and breathing related problems). The 2/1/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status…
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 · D2024-03-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored in accordance with accepted professional standards for one of one medication refrigerators. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were in a locked storage container that was permanently affixed to the refrigerator. Findings include: I. Observations On 3/18/24 at 11:09 a.m., the medication refrigerator was observed with the registered nurse liaison (RNL). A vial of liquid Ativan (a benzodiazepine and a schedule IV controlled substance used to treat anxiety) was in a storage box. -The storage box was not permanently affixed to the inside of the refrigerator. II. Staff interviews The RNL was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 11:11 a.m. The RNL said she was new to the facility and still in training. She said she was not aware that controlled medications were required to be in a permanently affixed locked compartment in the refrigerator. She said she understood anyone with access to the refrigerator could just take the controlled medication boxes out 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 · Fcited before2019-10-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored and served under safe and sanitary conditions in one of one facility production kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to minimize the risk for potential foodborne illness in an at risk population. The facility failed to ensure: -Appropriate hand washing; -Safe storage of cold foods; and -Food and non-food contact surfaces were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. Findings include: I. Hand hygiene A. Professional references According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code (2017), pp. 48-50, foodservice staff shall use the following handwashing procedures: -Rinse under clean, running warm water; -Apply an amount of cleaning compound recommended by the cleaning compound manufacturer; -Rub together vigorously for at least 10 to 15 seconds while paying particular attention to removing soil from underneath the fingernails and creating friction on the surfaces of the hands and arms fingertips, and areas between the fingers; -Thoroughly rinse under…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-31 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to treat one (#27) of two residents reviewed for dignity of 39 sample residents with respect and dignity and provide care for the resident in a manner that enhanced her quality of life. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Assist Resident #27 with dining while being seated at the resident's eye level; and -Interact with Resident #27 while assisting the resident with dining. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Dignity and Respect policy, revised 10/11/18, revealed the purpose of the policy was to identify ways staff would maintain residents' dignity while providing care. Staff should display respect for residents when speaking with, caring for or talking about them, as constant affirmation of their individuality and dignity as human beings. The Feeding Assistance checklist, dated September 2019, documented staff assisting residents with dining should always treat residents with dignity and respect. Staff should sit at the same level 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 · Dcited before2019-10-31 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to administer medications according to professional standards of quality for two (#39 and #30) of 11 residents reviewed for medication administration of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Resident #39's and Resident #30's medications were not left at the bedside; -Residents #39 and #30 were evaluated and assessed to self-administer their own medications in a timely manner; and -Physician orders were in place in a timely manner that allowed Residents #39 and #30 to self-administer their own medications. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The corporate nurse consultant (CNC) provided the Safe Medication Preparation policy and procedure, dated 2017, on 10/31/19 at 12:05 p.m. It documented prior to administering medications, a physical assessment should be performed that would reveal physical findings for any indications or contraindications for medication therapy. Be sure to assess the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-31 · 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 (#36) of one resident reviewed for bathing and grooming received the necessary assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #36 received timely assistance with eye and facial cleanliness. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Resident Observations policy and procedure, dated July 2018, was provided by the corporate nurse consultant (CNC) on 10/31/19 at 12:05 p.m. It listed the expectations for residents' grooming and cleanliness, which included the following: staff were to check to ensure their skin was clean and there was not food on their face or hands, their hair was combed and clean, their eyes were not matted, and their mouth did not contain debris or odor. II. Resident #36 status Resident #36, age [AGE], was admitted [DATE]. According to the October 2019 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included macular…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control standards of practice for three (#15, #5 and #13) of three residents reviewed for blood glucose monitoring of 34 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Properly disinfect and store personal blood glucose monitoring devices after use for Residents #15, #5, and #13; -Dispose of contaminated materials properly after blood glucose testing; and -Wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) while performing blood glucose testing. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure According to the Blood Sugar Glucometer Testing policy, revised December 2018, provided by corporate nurse consultant (CNC) on 10/31/19 at 8:30 a.m., staff were to provide privacy, apply gloves, and clean the glucometer with disinfectant wipes (or manufacturer's recommendations) after each use. II. Observations During medication pass with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 on 10/29/19 at 3:30 p.m., the LPN was observed performing a blood sugar test on Resident #13. Upon completion the LPN…
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 before2018-11-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored and served under safe and sanitary conditions in one of one facility kitchen and one of three resident dining room refrigerators. Specifically, the facility failed to minimize potential risks for foodborne illness in a highly susceptible population as evidenced by: -Inadequate hand washing; -Insufficient sanitation of work surfaces; and -Failure to monitor, identify and correct improper refrigerator temperatures in the Creekside dining area. Findings include: I. Inappropriate hand hygiene A. Professional references According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2017 Food Code pp. 48-50: Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food, clean equipment and utensils. In addition hands shall be washed: - After handling soiled utensils or equipment; - During food preparation as often as necessary to remove soil and contamination; - After engaging in 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.
Show the remaining 10 citations
- Potential for harm · E2018-11-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide oxygen services as prescribed by the physician. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was administered as ordered by the physician for four (#2, #12, #13 and #35) of four residents reviewed for oxygen therapy of 35 sample residents. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Oxygen Therapy Monitoring policy, revised 10/11/18, provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 11/14/18 at 1:57 p.m., stated in purpose that oxygen therapy was considered a vital treatment, and monitoring its correct usage was the responsibility of all nursing staff. The policy statement read that regularly scheduled checks of each oxygen dependent resident would be done to ensure that residents were receiving the correct liter flow, attached to an adequate supply source, and had a nasal cannula or mask in place and all tubing intact. Compliance with these expectations would be monitored by the nursing manager and any…
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 · E2018-11-15 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident, family and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care for 17 (#1, #2, #3, #9, #16, #22, #24, #25, #28, #31, #35, #41, #44, #47, #50, #51, #52) of 35 sample residents. Resident and staff interviews revealed the facility failed to consistently provide adequate nursing staff resulting in delayed call light response, assistance with activities of daily living, assistance to and from the toilet, and prolonged wait times before and after meals in the dining room. Findings include: Cross-reference F550 failure to provide care with dignity and respect, F695 failure to provide oxygen therapy as ordered, F744 failure to provide person-centered dementia care, F802 sufficient dietary support personnel, and F919 failure to answer call lights in a timely manner. I. Facility policy and procedure The Staffing policy and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2018-11-15 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — patternProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
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, observations and record review, the facility failed to employ sufficient dietary support staff to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services department in two of two facility dining rooms. Specifically, insufficient numbers of adequately trained food and nutrition staff contributed to prolonged wait times for meals and overall decreased resident satisfaction with dining. Findings include: I. Food production and service The facility had one production kitchen and two functioning serving kitchens. There was a serving kitchen with adjacent dining area in the Pondside and Mountainside neighborhoods. Meals for the neighborhood dining rooms and for in-room dining were prepared in the production kitchen and transported to the neighborhoods for service to residents. Certified nursing aides (CNAs) took orders and delivered trays for in-room meals. There was one dietary server assigned to each neighborhood kitchen and dining area. Meal times were breakfast 8:00 a.m., lunch 12:00 p.m.…
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 · E2018-11-15 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident's call light system was functioning in its entirety. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure call light requests for assistance were not dismissed prior to the resident receiving the help they needed. Cross-reference F725 sufficient nursing staff Findings include: I. Professional standard According to [NAME], [NAME], Stockert, and Hall (copyright 2017), Fundamentals of Nursing (ninth edition), page 390: Nurses are responsible for making a patient's bedside safe. Explain and demonstrate to patients how to use the call light or intercom system and always place the call device close to the patient at the conclusion of every nurse-patient interaction. Respond quickly to call lights. II. Facility layout The facility had three neighborhoods with one long hallway that connected all three: Mountain Side, Creek Side, and Pond Side. The resident call light system alerted staff by sending notifications to IPods carried by…
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 before2018-11-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#17) of one resident reviewed for dignity of 35 sample residents was treated with respect and dignity. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Assess needs and provide dignified care while Resident #17 was visibly upset; -Verbally interact with Resident #17 while providing care; and -Provide dignified care to Resident #17 by honoring the resident's request to be transferred to a recliner. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Dignity and Respect policy, dated 10/28/13 and revised 10/11/18, provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 11/15/18 at 11:30 a.m., read in pertinent part, Our staff shall display respect for residents when speaking with, caring for, or talking about them, as constant affirmation of their individuality and dignity as human beings. II. Resident #17 status Resident #17, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2018 computerized physician…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-11-15 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to inform two (#500 and #46) of three residents reviewed for beneficiary notices of 35 sample residents in a timely manner of changes in their services covered by Medicare. Specifically, the residents were not provided notice of Medicare provider non-coverage, including all required information, in a timely manner. Findings include: I. Standard The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Notice of Medicare Provider Non-Coverage (Form CMS-10123) letters (also called Non-Coverage letters, Expedited Appeal Notice (ABN), or a Generic Notice) are provided to residents receiving Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) services funded through Medicare benefits. Non-Coverage letters document residents and/or their legal representatives received written notification that discontinuation of Medicare coverage was imminent. II. Facility policy and procedure The director of nursing (DON) said on 11/14/18 at 12:45 p.m. the facility did not have a policy regarding Medicare coverage and liability notices. She provided an instruction sheet…
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 · D2018-11-15 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of minimum data set (MDS) assessments regarding personal alarms for two (#43 and #51) of two residents reviewed for personal alarms of 35 sample residents. Specifically, Residents #43 and #51 had personal alarms but their MDS assessments documented alarms were not used. Findings include: I. Resident #43 A. Resident status Resident #43, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2018 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances and other specified anxiety disorders. The 10/25/18 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15. Restraints and personal alarms were documented as not used. B. Record review Review of the resident's fall prevention care plan, initiated 7/20/18,…
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 · D2018-11-15 · 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 provide person-centered dementia care services to one (#43) of two residents reviewed for dementia with antipsychotics and dementia care services of 35 sample residents. Specifically, Resident #43 had diagnoses of dementia with Lewy bodies and dementia with behavioral disturbance, but no psychiatric diagnoses. Resident #43 was administered antipsychotic medications and personal alarms were applied to his wheelchair and bed. However, the facility failed to comprehensively assess, develop and implement person-centered, non-pharmaceutical interventions for dementia care to enhance Resident #43's highest practicable quality of life and well-being. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Behavioral Management Dementia-Clinical Protocol, dated 10/28/13 and revised 10/10/18, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 11/15/18 at 11:30 a.m. The DON said the facility did not have a dementia care policy, and said 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 · D2018-11-15 · 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 and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#9) of five residents reviewed for medications of 35 sample residents was free from unnecessary medications. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure documentation related to Resident #9's level of psychosis was consistent between the diagnosis list, minimum data set (MDS), computerized physician orders (CPOs), progress notes and care plan; and -Consistently document Resident #9's reaction to psychotropic medications, including effectiveness, potential side effects and any non-pharmacological interventions attempted in lieu of psychotropic use. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the [NAME] Nursing Drug Handbook (2019), page 437, Lexapro is classified as an anti-depressant used for the treatment of depressive disorders and generalized anxiety disorder. Seroquel (page 976) is classified as a second-generation (atypical) anti-psychotic with an off-label use for the treatment of psychosis and agitation related to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-11-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control standards of practice for one (#8) of five residents reviewed for blood glucose monitoring of 35 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to properly disinfect and store blood glucose monitoring devices after use for Resident #8. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017) Injection Safety, retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/blood-glucose-monitoring.html (11/20/18), blood glucose meters are devices that measure blood glucose levels. Whenever possible, blood glucose meters should be assigned to an individual person and not be shared. If blood glucose meters must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions, to prevent carry-over of blood and infectious agents. If the manufacturer does not specify how the device should be cleaned and disinfected then it should not be shared. II. Facility policy and procedure According to the Blood…
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NORTHWEST COLORADO VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2025 |
| ARTHURS, JESSE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| DUBINSKY, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| KLOHR, VICTORIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| LEAMING, ROSALIND | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| LEWIS, REBECCA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| MURPHY, ERIKA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| PARK, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| PLUMMER, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| WILSON, ERIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| EINFELD, STEPHANIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| MORRILL, MATT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| CHRISTIAN LIVING SERVICES | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2025 |
| HARDESTY, EVAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/09/2025 |
| WOOSLEY, JEANINE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/09/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 065341. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-03-21, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.