No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Ashton Memorial Living Center

700 North Second Street, Ashton, ID 83420 · For profit - Corporation · 38 certified beds · (208) 652-7461 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (208) 652-7461 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0604) — cited Nov 2019Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (24) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
30 W Main St · (208) 624-2969 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
23 S 8th St · (208) 652-3932 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
108 Highway 20 · (208) 652-7771 · Call to confirm hours
Park
828 Highway 20 · (208) 652-7520 · Typically dawn to dusk

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased12.2%15.6%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight9.1%5.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.0%1.2%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.0%2.0%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms9.7%15.1%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.0%3.0%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.2%16.1%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication14.9%16.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.5%3.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.7%22.1%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table14.3%20.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.6%1.8%1.4%worse

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ 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.

0.13U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.07hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 10% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot 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 SNFsnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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

1.14
RN hours/ resident / day
0.25
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.26
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.65
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.76
RN hoursweekends
52.4%
Total nursing turnover
30.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 38 beds and averages 25.7 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 12 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 4.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.14 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.26 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.87 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.30 to 0.76 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-12-10)
10
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-08)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-10 · tag F0628 — isolated
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a bed hold notice was provided to residents or their representatives at the time of the resident's transfer to the hospital. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #6) reviewed for transfers. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if residents were not informed of their right to return to their former bed or room at the facility within a specified time. Findings include: Resident #6 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Resident #6's medical record documented she was transferred to a hospital on 8/12/25, and returned on 8/15/25. A bed-hold agreement was not completed for Resident #6 at time of discharge to the hospital. A bed-hold agreement was completed upon Resident #6's return to the facility on 8/15/25. On 12/9/25 at 2:40 PM, the facility billing clerk stated she completed…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-10 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory services as ordered by the physician. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for respiratory services. This failure created the potential for residents to experience increased fatigue and low oxygen levels. Findings include:Resident #1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including sepsis and urinary tract infection.Resident #1's physician order for oxygen documented Oxygen PRN 2-3LPM to keep oxygen saturation >88%, start date 11/4/25.On 12/9/25 at 12:50 PM, Resident #1's medical record documented SpO2 information gathered on the following dates. - 11/11/25 at 18:29 86% R/A- 11/12/25 at 12:06 88% R/A- 11/14/25 at 11:30 88% R/A- 11/16/25 at 20:19 88% 2 lpm- 11/18/25 at 12:20 88% R/A- 11/20/25 at 13:43 86% R/AOn 12/9/25 at 2:00 PM, Resident #1's medical record had no documentation regarding nursing…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-10 · tag F0730 — isolated
    Observe each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on staff interview and review of employee personal files, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each CNA's annual performance review was completed at least once every 12 months for 1 of 1 CNAs (CNA #1) whose personnel records were reviewed for sufficient and competent staffing. This failure created the potential for incompetent CNAs providing care and increased the risk for harm for all residents living in the facility. Findings include:On 12/9/25 at 2:57 PM, review of CNA #1's employee file documented her initial hire date was 10/13/20.CNA #1's employee file did not have documentation that an annual performance review had been done.On 12/9/25 at 3:47 PM, the HR Director stated the CNAs annual performance reviews had not been done because she thought the annual competencies met the requirement for annual performance review.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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 observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications available for residents were stored appropriately; this was true for 1 of 18 resident's rooms inspected (Resident #17) and 1 of 1 medication carts audited for labeling and storage of medication. This failure created the potential for adverse effects if residents self-administered medications inappropriately or did not take their medications and created the potential for harm to a resident if they were to obtain medications which were left unattended and unsecured by staff. Findings include:1. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including heart failure and diabetes.On 12/9/25 at 6:55 AM, observed on Resident #17's bedside table a medication cup with several pills in it.On 12/9/25 at 7:01 AM, Resident #17 stated the nurse had brought her medication in and left it on the table. Resident #17 stated she took out her thyroid medication and was waiting to take the other pills…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure 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 observation, interview, and review of the Idaho Food Code, the facility failed to appropriately store, distribute, and label foods. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who received meals prepared in the facility's kitchen. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination and use of spoiled foods, and adverse health outcomes including food-borne illnesses. Findings include:The Idaho Food Code, revised February 2021, stated, 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking . refrigerated, ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5 C (41 F) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1.On 12/9/25 at 7:16 AM, during a tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Supervisor the following were observed. In the Dry food storage area;- 1 gallon container of…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, document reviews, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment. These failures had the potential to impact all residents in the facility by placing them at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include:The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogens regulations 1910.1030, updated 10/19/21, states, Eating, drinking, smoking, applying cosmetics or lip balm, and handling contact lenses are prohibited in work areas where there is a reasonable likelihood of occupational exposure and Food and drink shall not be kept in refrigerators, freezers, shelves, cabinets or on countertops or benchtops where blood or other potentially infectious materials are present.The facility's Glucometer Cleaning Policy, undated, directed staff members to clean and disinfect glucometers after each use.The follow was observed for infection…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-11-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 observation, food code review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner. These deficiencies had the potential to affect all residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination of food and adverse health outcomes, including food-borne illnesses. Findings include: The FDA (Food Drug Administration) 2022 Food Code, Section 3-501.17 documented on-premises preparation Prepare and hold cold 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (A) Except when PACKAGING FOOD using a REDUCED OXYGEN PACKAGING method as specified under § 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less for a maximum of 7…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-08 · tag F0730 — pattern
    Observe each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on staff interview and review of employee personal files, it was determined the facility failed to provide a minimum of 12 hours of in-service education per year for 3 of 18 CNAs (#4, #5, and #7) whose personnel records were reviewed. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure each CNA's annual performance reviews were completed at least once every 12 months for 3 of 3 CNAs (#2, #4, and #5) whose personnel records were reviewed for sufficient and competent CNA staffing. This failure created the potential for incompetent CNAs providing care and increased the risk for harm for all residents living in the facility. Findings include: The following personnel records were reviewed on 11/6/24 for 12 hours of in-service education: 1. CNA #4's personnel record documented her hire date was 8/25/14. CNA #4's in-service tracking records did not document in-service hours for 2023 or 2024. 2. CNA #5's personnel record documented her hire date was 12/23/19. CNA #5's in-service tracking records did not document in-service hours for 2023 or 2024. 3. CNA #7's employee file documented her hire…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention practices were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment when staff did not offer or encourage residents hand hygiene prior to meals served in their rooms, and follow appropriate cleaning of medical equipment. These failures had the potential to impact all residents in the facility by placing them at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include: The following hand hygiene issues were observed during meal travel delivery: 1. On 11/4/24 at 8:32 AM, CNA #2 did not encourage Resident #26 to perform hand hygiene before eating. On 11/4/24 at 8:37 AM, CNA #2 stated, I did not offer Resident #26 hand hygiene and I should have. 2. On 11/4/24 at 8:34 AM, CNA #1 did not encourage Resident #21 to perform hand hygiene before eating. On 11/4/24 at 8:40 AM, CNA #1 stated I did not offer hand hygiene to Resident #21 and I should have. 3. On 11/4/24 at 8:44 AM, CNA #3 did not encourage Resident #19 to perform hand hygiene before…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-08 · tag F0582 — isolated
    Give 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide the Advance Beneficiary Notice (CMS-10055 form) for 3 of 3 residents (#7, #19, and #25) reviewed for beneficiary protection notification. This deficient practice had the potential to cause financial harm or distress for residents when they were not informed of their potential liability for payment when their Medicare Part A benefits ended. Findings include: 1. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic kidney disease and sepsis. A Skilled Nursing Facility Beneficiary Notification Review documented Resident #7's Medicare A benefit ended on 5/23/24. Resident #7's medical record did not include an Advance Beneficiary Notice (ABN). 2. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including dementia and hypertension. A Skilled Nursing Facility Beneficiary Notification Review documented Resident #19's Medicare A benefit ended on 5/28/24. Resident…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Show the remaining 14 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-08 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure 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 interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessments accurately reflected residents' status. This was true for 3 of 7 residents (#5, #7, and #14) whose MDS, care plan, and nursing assessments were reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if residents were not assessed, cared for, or monitored due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: Appendix PP of the State Operations Manual, revised 8/8/24, documented the assessment must accurately reflect the resident's status at the time of the assessment. 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (occurs when the body does not have enough oxygen in the blood) and atrial fibrillation. Resident #5's MDS assessments, dated 1/30/24, 4/25/24, and 5/17/24, documented her height was 66 inches. Resident #5's MDS assessment, dated 8/16/24, documented her height was 69 inches. On…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-08 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to refer residents for further evaluation when residents were diagnosed with a major mental illness, intellectual disability, or a related condition. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for PASARR Level II evaluations. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm if resident's specialized services for mental health needs were not evaluated by an appropriate state-designated authority. Findings include: The facility's admission Criteria policy, dated March 2019, documented, All new admissions and readmissions are screened for mental disorders (MD), intellectual disabilities (ID), or related disorders (RD) per the Medicaid Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) process. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including heart failure, hypertension, and developmental delay. On 3/15/24, Resident #27's admission MDS assessment documented…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice for wound care were followed for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident #3), reviewed for wound care. This deficient practice created the potential for resident harm, or adverse outcomes related to infection and skin breakdown. Findings include: The Facility's Wound Care policy, undated, documented under Steps in the Procedure #13. Dress wound. Pick up sponge with paper and apply directly to area. [NAME] tape with initials, time, and date and apply to dressing. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including diabetes and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (which occurs when the body does not have enough oxygen in the blood). On 11/4/24 at 11:16 AM, Resident #3's left leg was observed to have two undated bandages. On 11/7/24 at 8:03 AM, the DNS stated it was the facility policy and expectation that staff date and initial all…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-08 · tag F0732 — isolated
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observation, document review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a completed daily staffing sheet had been posted in the nursing facility. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility and their representatives, visitors, and others who wanted to review the facility's staffing levels. Findings include: On 11/4/24 at 8:00 AM, it was observed the posted facility daily staffing sheet had been left blank. On 11/4/24 at 8:01 AM, the DNS stated the posted facility daily staffing sheet should be completed at the beginning of the shift, which started at 6:00 AM. On 11/4/24 at 9:25 AM, it was observed the posted facility daily staffing sheet remained blank.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-08 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary 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 observation, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to obtain an order for prescription medicine. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #3), reviewed for oxygen usage. This deficient practice created the potential for resident harm or adverse outcomes with the use of non-prescribed medical oxygen. Findings include: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including diabetes and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (which occurs when the body does not have enough oxygen in the blood). On 11/4/24 at 11:15 AM, an oxygen concentrator was observed in Resident #3's room. On 11/4/24 at 11:16 AM, Resident #3 stated he only used the oxygen at night and when sleeping in his recliner chair. Resident #3's medical record did not include a physician's order for oxygen therapy. Resident #3's progress notes, dated 10/29/24 at 3:03 AM, and 11/3/24 at 3:08 AM, documented, Resident is now asleep in bed with oxygen in place. Resident #3's care plan…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications available for residents were stored appropriately. This was true for the 1 medication storage room inspected. This failure created the potential for misappropriation of residents' medications. Findings include: The facility's Control Substance policy, revised on 11/16/22, documented the facility would comply with all laws, regulations, and other requirements related to the handling, storage, disposal, and documentation of Schedule II and other control substances. On 11/5/24 at 2:05 PM, during an inspection of the medication storage room, with LPN #1 present, the facility's emergency narcotic kit was observed in a plastic box, secured with a plastic zip tie, in an unlocked medication storage refrigerator. On 11/5/24 at 2:11 PM, LPN #1 stated the narcotic emergency kit contained Ativan (a controlled substance used to treat anxiety disorders). She stated the narcotic emergency box should have been double locked. On 11/6/24 at 9:46 AM, the DNS stated narcotics should be…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2019-11-01 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — pattern
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    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, staff interview, and record and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure position change alarms, floor mat alarms, and seat belt alarms were assessed as potential restraints and a consent was obtained from the resident and/or representatives prior to initiation of the alarms. This was true for 4 of 4 residents (#10, #20, #22 and #129) reviewed for potential restraints. This deficient practice had the potential for harm if the position change devices were improperly used and if resident experienced physical deterioration due to lack of movement. Findings include: The facility's Fall Investigation and Prevention Programs policy, undated, documented upon admission, residents would be evaluated for risk of falls. If the resident was at risk for falls, a Fall Risk Assessment Matrix Observation form would be completed by the DON. The policy also documented no alarms or restraints would be place on any resident without evaluation by the IDT and subsequent approval and order…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2019-11-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure 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

    Based on observation, policy review, resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment was free from accident hazards when thresholds were too high in 2 of 2 dining rooms. This was true for 5 of 12 residents (#1, #13, #19, #20, and #26) reviewed for accident hazards and 1 of 11 residents (Resident #5) in the group interview. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if residents fell due to trip hazards. Findings include: The facility's safety policy, dated July 2017, documented staff were trained to identify and report safety risks and environmental hazards to prevent avoidable accidents. This policy was not followed. On 10/29/19 at 9:13 AM, Resident #19 said he had difficulty maneuvering over the hump in the main dining room with his wheelchair. He said CNAs also had trouble helping residents over the hump. On 10/29/19 at 9:32 AM, the main dining room had a 1 and 1/2-inch wide hard rubber threshold that separated the carpet and laminate floor that ran parallel just right of the entrance door. The threshold was 11…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-11-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interview and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were consistently implemented. This was true for 3 of 3 residents (#1, #10 and #25) when staff failed to perform hand hygiene between resident contact. Additionally, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a Sara lift used to safely transfer residents to a standing position was cleaned after each use. These deficient practices created the potential for the spread of infectious organisms from cross-contamination. Findings include: 1. The facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy, revised August 2019, directed staff to use an alcohol based hand rub containing at 62% alcohol or alternatively soap and water before and after direct contact with residents. This policy was not followed: On 10/29/19 at 3:26 PM, CNA #3 asked Resident #1 if the surveyor could see his legs. Resident #1 said yes. CNA #3, with his bared hands, removed Resident #1's shoes and socks. The surveyor then asked CNA #3 to put Resident #1's shoes and socks back on, which he did.…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-01 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' records included clear and accurate information related to Advance Directives. This was true for 2 of 8 residents (#10 and #20) reviewed for Advance Directives. This failure created the potential for harm should residents not have their decisions documented, honored, and respected when they were unable to make or communicate their health care preferences. Findings include: The State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, defines an Advance directive as a written instruction, such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care, recognized under State law (whether statutory or as recognized by the courts of the State), relating to the provision of health care when the individual is incapacitated. Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (or POST) paradigm form is a form designed to improve patient care by creating a portable medical order form that records patients' treatment wishes…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-01 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 record review, policy review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure written notice was provided to the resident and resident's representative prior to transfer to the hospital. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #9) reviewed for transfer/discharge to the hospital. This created the potential for harm if residents were not made aware of or able to exercise their rights related to transfers. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure for Transfer or Discharge Notice, updated December 2016, documented when transfer is emergent the facility transfer or discharge notice would be given as soon as practicable but before the transfer or discharge. The resident and/or representative would be notified in writing the reason for the transfer and the location of transfer. This policy was not followed. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy (damage to the nerves that carry information 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure comprehensive resident-centered care plans included the use of tab/chair alarm. This was true for 2 of 12 residents (#20 and #129) whose care plan were reviewed. This failure created the potential for harm should residents receive inappropriate or inadequate care. Findings include: The facility's Comprehensive Care Plan Policy statement, revised December 2016, documented The comprehensive, person centered care plan will describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. 1. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses which included traumatic subdural hemorrhage. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 8/19/19, documented Resident #20 was moderately cognitively impaired and dependent on one staff member for all cares except for eating and drinking. On 10/29/19 at 10:14 AM, Resident…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-01 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were assisted with hand hygiene. This was true for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for ADL care. This failure created the potential for harm by potentially exposing residents to the risk of infection. Findings include: Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease. An annual MDS assessment, dated 7/25/19, documented Resident #10 was severely cognitively impaired and she required extensive assistance of one to two persons for most ADLs. On 10/28/19 at 4:44 PM, CNA #1 and CNA #2 were observed as they assisted Resident #10 to stand up using the Sara lift (a sit to stand lift). CNA #1 and CNA #2 then wheeled Resident #10 to the restroom. Inside the restroom Resident #10 was observed to touch her genitalia using her right hand as soon as CNA #2 removed the resident's incontinence brief. CNA #1 took Resident #10's hand and asked…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-01 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement 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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received gradual dose reductions (GDR) of psychotropic medications unless clinically contraindicated. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure created the potential for harm if residents receive psychotropic medications that were unwarranted, ineffective, and used for excessive duration. Findings include: The facility's Tapering Medications and Gradual Drug Dose Reduction policy and procedure, dated April 2007, directed staff to attempt a GDR of psychotropic medications at least annually unless clinically contraindicated. This policy was not followed. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including depression, hemiplegia (total or partial paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness of one entire side of the body). Resident #12's physician orders, dated 6/2/16 documented he received…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
BLANCHARD, GARTHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/21/2022
DAVIDSON, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/21/2022
NIELSEN, SUZANNEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/24/2007
PACKER, MICHAELIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2020
SHULDBERG, SHONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2009

CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$1.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 81%Medicare 4%Other / private 15%

About 81% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.

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

$700per resident / day
operating cost
$21,272per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$196per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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 ID

Paying with Medicaid

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 Idaho Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Idaho
$10,494/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,167/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,175/mo
Assisted living

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 135097. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-10, 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.

What to do next