Skyline Transitional Care Center

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

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.

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.

44.4% 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 63 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 51.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 27 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 57% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 111 beds and averages 72.9 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 38 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 3.53 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.29 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 3.02 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.74 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.13 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

32 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2022-01-24 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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 policy review, resident and staff interview, review of Incident and Accident reports (I&As), and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse and neglect. This was true for 3 of 15 Residents (#4, #23, and #36) reviewed for potential abuse and/or neglect. Resident #4 experienced neglect resulting in emotional distress and mental anguish when the facility failed to ensure he was provided with an alternative communication system to enable him to effectively express himself. Resident #23 also experienced neglect resulting emotional distress and mental anguish when the facility failed to ensure she had an augmentative or alternative communication system to enable her to file grievances and clearly communicate with staff and others following a stroke. This failure also resulted in Resident #36 being subjected to verbal abuse from another resident. Findings include: The facility policy, titled Resident Protection during an Abuse Investigation, documented 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Actual harm · Gcited before2022-01-24 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate care to prevent and treat pressure ulcers. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for pressure ulcer care. This deficient practice resulted in harm to Resident #12 when she developed new Stage 3 and Stage 4 pressure ulcers, and the pressure ulcer she was admitted with, worsened. Findings include: The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel website, accessed on 1/31/22, defined pressure ulcer staging as follows: Stage 2 - Partial-thickness skin loss with exposed dermis (thick layer of living tissue below the epidermis which forms the true skin, containing blood capillaries, nerve endings, sweat glands, hair follicles, and other structures). The wound bed is viable, pink or red, moist, and may also present as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. Adipose (fat) is not visible, and deeper tissues are not visible. Granulation tissue (new connective tissue 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
  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 staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided respiratory services consistent with professional standards of practice. This was true for 4 of 5 residents (#9, #23, #26, and #28) whose respiratory devices were not stored properly and 1 of 5 residents (#89) reviewed for physician orders for oxygen therapy. This deficient practice created the potential for residents to develop infection and to receive too little or too much oxygen. Findings include: 1. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD is an ongoing lung condition that makes it difficult to breathe), chronic respiratory failure, and generalized muscle weakness. On 6/8/26 at 2:18 PM, Resident #9's nebulizer mask was observed laying on the bed. CNA #2 stated nebulizer masks should be stored in a plastic bag and it should not have been laying on the bed. On 6/10/26 at 8:53 AM, Resident #9's…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-12 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adherence to infection control and prevention practices, consistent with professional standards of practice. This was true for 3 of 3 residents (#6, #48, and #64) when staff did not follow hand hygiene protocols when going from a dirty to a clean environment during wound care and activities of daily living (ADL's), and 1 of 3 residents (Resident #6) observed for not following enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) during wound care. This deficient practice created the potential for harm to the residents due to cross-contamination and increased risk for infection. Findings include: Facility policy titled, Infection Control Prevention and Control Program-Hand Hygiene, reviewed 2/2025, documented, Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol, or alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: -Before and after direct contact with residents. -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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · 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 residents were transferred to the hospital with all required documentation. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #64) whose hospital transfers were reviewed. This failure placed Residents #64 at risk for harm when the receiving healthcare institution were not provided the residents' care plan goals. The SOM, Appendix PP, revised 7/23/25 documented:When the facility transfers or discharges a resident under any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of this section, the facility must ensure that the transfer or discharge is documented in the resident's medical record and appropriate information is communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider.(iii) Information provided to the receiving provider must include a minimum of the following:(A) Contact information of the practitioner responsible for the care of the resident.(B) Resident representative information including…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, 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 the required Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) process was completed accurately for a resident with mental health diagnoses. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #6) reviewed for PASRRs. This failure created the potential for the residents' mental health needs or need for specialized services to go undectected if PASRRs were inaccurate. Findings Include:Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including a primary diagnosis of severe protein-calorie malnutrition, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and dementia.Resident #6's PASRR level 1 dated 5/19/26, documented she had an anxiety disorder, mood disorder and a primary diagnosis of dementia.On 6/12/26 at 10:35 AM, the Social Services Manager confirmed Resident #6 did not have a primary diagnosis of dementia and stated she would complete a new PASRR level I.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-12 · 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 and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive, person centered care plan was developed to reflect the resident's diagnosed needs. This was true for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for person-centered care plans. The failure to include Resident #27's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis and related triggers in the care plan created the potential for unaddressed psychosocial needs and triggering of traumatic stress responses. Findings include:Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder.A Social Services Assessment/Evaluation, dated 5/27/26 documented in Section III, Question B ( Experience of trauma or history of trauma?) the response documented was NO.A review of Resident #27's comprehensive person centered care plan showed no care area addressing PTSD, despite the diagnosis…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure necessary pressure relieving boots were consistently applied as ordered to prevent development of pressure injuries and promote skin integrity. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure-injury prevention. This failure placed Resident #1 at increased risk for harm related to pressure-related skin breakdown. Findings includeThe facility's Skin and Wound Monitoring and Management Policy, revised 4/2025 documented:1. A resident who enters the facility without pressure injury does not develop pressure injury unless the individual's clinical condition or other factors demonstrate that a developed pressure injury was unavoidable; and 2. A resident having pressure injury(s) receives necessary and services to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new, avoidable pressure injuries from developing.Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
  Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to follow up on the dialysis centers recommendations for a resident receiving dialysis services. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #28) reviewed for dialysis services. The failure to act on dialysis recommendations created the potential for adverse outcomes related to fluid management, a critical component of care for residents with end stage renal disease. Findings include:Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including respiratory disorder, end-stage renal disease, and the need for assistance with personal care.A physician order dated 4/24/26 documented a 2,000 mL/day fluid restriction, broken down as follows:-Kitchen to provide 920 mL/day of drinks on tray-Nursing to provide 1,080 mL/[NAME] review of Resident #28's dialysis record dated 6/1/26, documented under Recommendations:Fluid restriction of 1 liter (1,000 ml/day.)On 6/11/26 at 2:37 PM, the DON stated, when the facility…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · tag F0699 — isolated
  Provide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
  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 trauma informed care services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice and in a manner that accounted for the resident's experiences and preferences. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #27) reviewed for trauma informed care. The facility's failure to identify and address trauma related needs created the potential for exposure to triggers and re traumatization. Findings include:Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including PTSD, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder.A review of Resident #27's comprehensive care plan did not document a focused care area addressing PTSD or triggers that may cause re-traumatization.A review of Resident #27's record showed no trauma informed care evaluation, including:-No documentation of the resident's trauma history-No identification of trauma triggers-No documentation 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · 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 record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were receiving medication with adequate monitoring. This was true for 3 of 6 residents (#19, #24, and #27) whose records were reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficiency placed Residents #19 and #27 at risk for overmedication when their pain medication orders did not include parameters for administration and placed Resident #19, #24, and #27, at risk to suffer from side effects due to the lack of opioid side effect monitors. Findings include: 1. Resident #24 was admitted [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including diabetes (a condition that happens when blood sugars are too high), depression, and hypertension. Resident #24's physician's orders included the following: -Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain, dated 3/17/26. A review of the record showed no documentation of opioid side-effect monitoring such as: -Sedation -Dizziness -Nausea…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-03-07 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the cleaning and sanitation of kitchen cookware. This deficiency had the potential to affect the 64 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential foodborne illnesses and adverse health outcomes due to contaminated food services equipment. Findings include: The Food Drug Administration (FDA) Code Section 4-602.12 Cooking and Baking Equipment documented: Food-contact surfaces of cooking equipment must be cleaned to prevent encrustations that may impede heat transfer necessary to adequately cook food. Encrusted equipment may also serve as an insect attractant when not in use. On 3/6/25 at 3:34 PM, baking sheets and frying pans were observed with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and Registered Dietitian to have a crusted black residue. They stated the cookware was cleaned and sanitized using appropriate food service methods; however, it was not cleaned thoroughly as the CDM was able to scratch off the crusted black residue with her fingernail.

  Nutrition and Dietary 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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.

1 organizational owner 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.

About 76% 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. This home reported $970K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in ID