Eagle Rock Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia
840 East Elva Street, Idaho Falls, ID 83401 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 113 certified beds · (208) 523-4795 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-14)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 23.3% | 15.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.7% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 2.0% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 15.1% | 15.1% | 6.5% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.3% | 16.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.6% | 16.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 3.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.2% | 22.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.9% | 20.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.0% | 1.8% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 62.6% | 86.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.9% | 17.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.78 | 1.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.16 | 1.66 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
55.4% 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 84 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.4% 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 55 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 55.4%CMS range 46.0–65.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 6.6–14.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 56.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 43.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 80.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.4% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.4%CMS range 4.1–12.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 113 beds and averages 81.9 residents a day — about 72% occupied, or roughly 31 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.23 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.37 to 0.90 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
35 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-08-14 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 were protected from significant medication errors. This was true for 2 of 4 residents (#1 and #3) reviewed for medication errors. This deficient practice created harm for one resident (Resident #1) who was hospitalized , and the potential for harm for one resident (Resident #3), due to receiving the wrong medications. Findings include: The facility's Medication Errors policy and procedure, release date 11/28/2017, documented a medication error as the administration of drugs or biologicals which is not in accordance with prescribers' orders, manufacturers specifications, and accepted professional standards. Significant Medication Error as one which causes the resident discomfort or jeopardizes his or her health and safety. 1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including encephalopathy (a group of conditions that cause brain dysfunction), high blood…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-02 · tag F0628 — patternProvide 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 policy review, record review, and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure pertinent health information was provided to the receiving health facility for 5 of 9 residents (Resident #1, #3, #7, #11, and #28) reviewed for transfers. This deficient practice had the potential to result in adverse outcomes if the residents were not treated in a timely manner due to a lack of information provided upon transfer. Findings include:Resident #1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including Progressive Supranuclear Ophthalmoplegia (Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome) (a rare brain disorder causing progressive damage to balance, eye movement, and mobility) and pulmonary embolism (a blockage in a lung artery). An eINTERACT Transfer Form Version 5.0 dated 12/7/25, documented Resident #1 was discharged to the hospital for pain on right side of head after a fall. Resident #1's medical record had not included documentation that the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-02 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to complete a baseline care plan for 2 of 2 residents (#4 and #70). This failure created the potential for harm when staff were not provided direction of care for resident. The facility also failed to provide a resident's baseline care plan to the resident or his/her representative for 5 of 7 residents (#7, #9, #11, #21, and #28) reviewed for baseline care plan. This failure placed residents and their representatives at risk of not being informed and having input in their care plan. Findings include:The facility's Baseline Care Plans policy, revised 9/3/25, documented the facility will initiate a baseline care plan for each resident within 48 hours of admission. The facility reviews and provides the resident and/or their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan and physician(provider) orders and in a language that the Resident and/or representative can understand. The medical record should contain…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications available for residents were labeled, dated, and were secure and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents; this was true for 2 of 2 medication carts inspected and 1 of 1 treatment carts observed. This failure created the potential for residents to receive expired medications with decreased efficacy, the potential for adverse effects if residents self-administered medications inappropriately, and the potential for residents to obtain prescribed wound care supplies used for other residents and presented the risk for cross-contamination of wound care products stored in the treatment cart. Findings include:The facility's Medication Storage In The Facility policy effective date May 2019, documented the following: - All medications dispensed by the pharmacy are stored in the container with the pharmacy label. -Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, 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. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #12) and the facility observed for infection control. These failures put residents at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include: The facility's Oxygen Administration, Safety, Storage & Maintenance policy, revision date 8/4/23, documented under Infection Control: - Change oxygen supplies weekly and when visibly soiled. - Store oxygen and respiratory supplies in bag labeled with resident's name when not in use.The facility's Inhalant (Nebulizer) Medication Administration policy revision date 9/16/25, documented the facility was to:- Follow standard of practice for medication administration, including the rights and infection prevention intervention, in addition to documentation requirements in the medical record.- Rinse nebulizer cup…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This was true for 2 of 2 Residents (#23 and #70) reviewed for respect and dignity. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of embarrassment and diminished sense of worth. Findings include:The facility's Dignity policy dated 9/12/25, documented each resident has the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Under 2. Promoting resident independence and dignity while dining, such as avoiding: h. refraining from practices demeaning to residents, such as leaving urinary catheter bags uncovered.Resident #70 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including diabetes and need for assistance with personal care. On 3/30/26 at 12:02 PM, CNA #13 had removed Resident #70's shirt without pulling the privacy curtain. Resident #70's roommate was on her side of the room at this time and had observed Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 informed consent was obtained prior to initiation of psychotropic medications for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of receiving medications without knowledge of the reason why medications were prescribed, the expected benefits, and the risks associated with the medications. Findings include:Resident #12 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (disease process causing decreased lung functionality), depression, and cardiomegaly (an enlarged heart). A physician order dated 11/27/25, documented Resident #12 was to start Aripiprazole 5 mg by mouth one time per day. On 4/1/26 at 9:48 AM, the CEO presented the surveyor with Resident #12's signed Psychoactive Medication Informed Consent document dated 1/16/26, listing Aripiprazole 5mg,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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, resident and staff interviews, record review, and policy review it was determined the facility failed to assess whether residents had the ability to self-administer their medications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #59) reviewed for self-administration of medications. This failure created the potential for adverse effects if medications were self-administered inappropriately by the resident. Findings include: The facility's Self-Administration of Medication policy revised 9/16/25, documented residents may self-administer medications when it is determined to be safe and appropriate.the assessment will include whether bedside storage is appropriate.if self-administration is approved, a physician's order will be obtained and the care plan updated.Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including paraplegia (paralysis of the lower extremities) and depression. On 3/30/26 at 10:07 AM, observed in Resident #59's room one bottle 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident and their representative received assistance to exercise their right to formulate an Advance Directive. This was true for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #8) whose records were reviewed for Advance Directives. This deficient practice created the potential for harm or adverse outcomes if the residents wishes were not followed or documented regarding their advance care planning. Findings include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including quadriplegia (paralysis of upper and lower limbs) and depression.On 3/31/26 at 9:02 AM, Resident #8's medical record contained a POST but had not documented an advance directive or documentation the facility informed or provided written information concerning the right to formulate an advance directive.On 3/31/26 at 10:48 AM, the Administrator provided the surveyor with a document titled, Understanding Advance Directives, with 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a safe, clean, and homelike environment. This was true for 2 of 22 resident rooms (#211 and #212), shower rooms, and other areas throughout the facility which were observed. This deficient practice created the potential for diminished quality of life and resident safety. Findings include:The following areas were observed for clean and homelike environment: On 3/30/26 at 4:09 PM, observed Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]:Room door frame protective molding torn with sharp jagged edges. On 3/31/26 at 2:08 PM, observed Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]:Electrical wall outlet broken with jagged edges. On 4/1/26 observed:a.Grand Teton Hall - Shower room tile floor with broken tile and missing grout at entry door. b.Palisades Hall - Shower room wall heater with broken and rusted areas to the front and sides of the heater. The heater base broken with jagged edges and partially disconnected from the floor. The tile…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0635 — isolatedProvide doctor's orders for the resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted.
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' hospital discharge instructions were reviewed upon admission to the facility to assure physician orders were in place to meet their medical needs. This was true for 2 of 2 residents (#9 and #37) whose records were reviewed. This failure placed these residents at risk of delayed respiratory care and assessments. Findings include:1. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (tissues are deprived of adequate oxygen causing shortness of breath) and obstructive sleep apnea.On 3/30/26 at 8:14 AM, observed in Resident #37's room, sitting on his dresser, a CPAP machine (a mask and air pump to keep airways open during sleep).On 3/30/26 at 8:16 AM, Resident #37 stated he uses the CPAP machine at night.On 4/2/26 at 10:48 AM, the CNO stated Resident #37 did not have an order for his CPAP, it was not on his care plan or on his MDS 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.
Show the remaining 24 citations
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to complete a significant change in condition or status assessment MDS within 14 days to accurately reflect the resident's status. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #4) whose medical record was reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if the resident was not assessed and cared for or monitored due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include:Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (a long-term, progressive inability of the lungs to oxygenate the blood sufficiently) and dementia.Resident #4's physician order dated 2/19/26, documented End of Life Care: Hospice Services.Resident #4's care plan documented hospice care started 2/19/26.On 3/31/26 at 5:10 PM, the MDS coordinator stated the facility had not completed a significant change in condition or status assessment MDS within 14 days of Resident #4…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a Level 1 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR I), was completed correctly for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #13) reviewed for Level 1 PASARR screenings. This failure created the potential for harm if residents required, but did not receive specialized services for mental health while residing in the facility. Findings include:The facility's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Process dated 8/29/25, documented under Procedure1. Ensure Level I PASRR screening has been completed on potential admissions prior to admission. 2. A negative Level I screen permits admission to proceed and end (the) PASRR process during the initial admission process. 3. A positive Level I screen necessitates an in-depth evaluation of the individual by the state-designated authority, known as PASRR Level II. 3a. When a Level II PASRR screening is warranted, it should be obtained (as well as determination…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observation, policy review, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #13) whose care plan was reviewed. This deficient practice of not developing and implementing care plans placed residents at risk to their health and wellbeing with negative outcomes if services were not provided or provided incorrectly. Findings include:The facility's Comprehensive Care Plan and Conferences policy dated 9/3/25, documented the care plan will reflect the residents' individual conditions, risks, needs, behaviors, cultural values, and preferences, and will include measurable goals, appropriate interventions, and realistic timeframes.Resident #13 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and was readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder and joint replacement surgery aftercare.Resident #13's medical record dated 3/3/26, documented medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-02 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 2 of 22 residents (#2 and #12) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed residents at risk for adverse outcomes if care and services were not provided due to care plans not being revised as residents' needs changed. Findings include. The facility's Resident Care Plan Revisions policy, revision date 9/3/25, documented.updates to the care plan will occur as needed based on the residents' response to interventions or changes in condition. Resident #2 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including fracture of the right tibia (lower leg bone) and anxiety. On 3/30/26 at 8:19 AM, Resident #2's physician order dated 3/6/26 - Edema Management Right lower leg: edema, apply Tubi grip on AM, off PM. On 3/30/26 at 11:33 AM, observed Resident #2 sitting in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed. This was true for 2 of 3 residents (#3 and #21) reviewed for quality of care. This failed practice placed residents at risk for discomfort and adverse effects, including potential for infection. Findings include:The facility's Standing Order - Bowel Protocol, signed date 12/18/25, documented: -Bowel Protocol Step 1: Senna 8.6mg 3 tablets PO at HS for constipation lasting >72 hours. -Bowel Protocol Step 2: Bisacodyl (Dulcolax) 5mg 3 tablets PO at HS for constipation lasting >96 hours.-Bowel Protocol Step 3: Bisacodyl (Dulcolax) suppository 10mg 1 suppository rectally at 10:00 for continued constipation morning after tablets.-Bowel Protocol Step 4: Fleets enema rectally at 12:00 for continued constipation 2 hours after suppository.-Special instructions: If no BM produced within 2 hours of enema, Call MD for further instruction.The facility's Infusion Therapy Responsibilities…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate care and treatment was provided to 1 of 1 resident (Resident #59) reviewed for enteral tube use. This created the potential for harm if complications developed from improper medication administration via enteral access device practice. Finding include:The facility's Medication Administration Enteral Assess Device policy, release date 9/16/25, directed staff to follow the general professional standards for safe administration of medications and verify tube placement per facility protocol.Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including paraplegia (paralysis of the legs and lower body, typically caused by spinal injury or disease) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).Resident #59's physician's order dated 1/21/26, documented Enteral Tube: May Crush meds or use liquid form via tube. Check tube placement via auscultation prior to medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-02 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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, policy review, manufacturer's PAP user manual, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 4 Residents (#12, #13, and #53) received respiratory services as prescribed by the physician. This created the potential for residents to experience respiratory difficulties and impaired breathing. Findings include:The facility's BiPAP/CPAP Administration policy dated 9/12/25, documented the facility will provide non-invasive ventilation (NIV) using BiPAP or CPAP therapy in accordance with physician orders and professional standards of practice.[NAME] PAP therapy user manual undated, documented under oxygen safety information, when using oxygen with this system, a [NAME] Respironics pressure valve must be placed in-line with the user circuit between the device and the oxygen source. The pressure valve helps to prevent the back flow of oxygen from the user circuit into the device when the unit is off. Failure to use the pressure valve could result in a fire hazard. When using…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide adequate pain management. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #53) whose medical record was reviewed. This failure created the potential for residents to experience continual pain and distress. Findings include:The facility's Pain Assessment and Management policy dated 9/2/25, documented under Procedure, Pain Management, 2. The facility should address/treat the underlying causes of the pain, to the extent possible, a. developing and implementing both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions/approaches to pain management.Resident #53 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including acute osteomyelitis of right ankle and foot (serious, often chronic bone infection (usually Staphylococcus aureus) requiring prompt treatment to prevent permanent damage) and lumbar vertebra fracture.Resident #53'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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 personnel record review, policy review, facility assessment, resident record review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure employees were competent to care for resident needs. This was true for 1 of 5 nurses observed for medication administration. This failure had the potential to affect all residents in the facility and increased the risk of harm to residents. Findings include:The facility's Medication Administration policy revision date 9/10/25, stated if parameters are indicated, take (or delegate to appropriate qualified staff to take) vital signs prior to preparing the medication. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including Interstitial lung disease (a group of over 200 disorders causing inflammation or scarring in the lung tissue between air sacs, making it difficult to breathe and get oxygen into the bloodstream) and heart failure.On 3/30/26 at 9:35 AM, LPN #2 gave Resident #21 his medication which included his Metoprolol…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-02 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 nurse staffing information was accurate and posted daily for each shift. This failed 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 3/30/26 at 4:17 PM, the following dates and times were missing daily staffing sheets or staffing data on the daily staffing sheets. - 5/6/25 No RN or LPN data listed for day and evening shifts - 9/8/25 No RN or LPN data listed for evening shift - 9/19/25 No CNA data listed for day/evening/night shifts - 12/7/25 Daily staffing sheet missing - 12/20/25 Daily staffing sheet missing - 12/21/25 Daily staffing sheet missing - 12/22/25 Only 1 RN for 8 hours listed for evening shift, no licensed nurses scheduled for day or night shifts.On 3/31/26 at 4:00 PM, the Staffing Coordinator stated the missing staffing data and sheets from those dates listed should not have been missing but was.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-15 · tag F0559 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to share a room with spouse or roommate of choice and receive written notice before a change is made.
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 ensure residents received prior written rationale regarding room changes. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #5) whose records were reviewed. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of embarrassment and diminished sense of worth. Findings include:Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a progressive lung disease characterized by persistent airflow limitation and respiratory symptoms such as chronic cough, sputum, shortness of breath, and exacerbations) and diabetes.On 9/15/25 at 8:20 AM, the facility provided resident listing had Resident #5 documented as being in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 9/15/25 at 8:25 AM, the surveyor found room [ROOM NUMBER] empty and RN#1 stated the resident had been moved to room [ROOM NUMBER] over the weekend. On 9/15/25 at 11:00 AM, Resident #5's medical record had no documentation of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-15 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide 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 interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the residents' discharge or transfer notices were sent to the Office of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman. This was true for 3 of 3 Residents (#9, #17, #23) reviewed for Ombudsman notification. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents by; 1) denying residents the added protection from being inappropriately discharged ; 2) providing the residents with access to an advocate who can inform them of their options and rights; and 3) ensuring the Office of the State LTC Ombudsman was aware of facility practices and activities related to transfers and discharges. Findings include: Review of the facility's Discharge and Transfer policy with revision date 4/17/25, documented a copy of the notice of discharge or tranfer is sent to a representative of the Office of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman.notices will be sent monthly.a. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-15 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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, resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident meals were prepared and accommodated resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences to meet individual resident needs. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #5) who were interviewed about food services and had the potential to affect all residents with special dietary needs who dined in the facility. This failed practice had the potential to negatively affect residents' nutritional status and psychosocial well-being. Findings include:The facility's Nutrition policy dated 8/1/23, documented the facility provides nutritional and hydration care and services to each resident, consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment and provides a therapeutic diet that considers the resident's clinical condition, and preferences. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a progressive lung disease…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-02-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain kitchen sanitation and food storage at least 6 inches above the floor. These deficiencies had the potential to affect the 53 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 and food services equipment. Findings include: 1. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code Section 3-305.11, documented: (A) Food should be protected from contamination and stored in a clean, dry location where it was not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination; and at least 6 inches above the floor. On 2/18/25, at 1:20 PM and 2/20/25 at 3:35 PM, it was observed the kitchen pantry shelves contained food items which were located 4.5 inches above the floor. On 2/20/25 at 3:40 PM, the Culinary Director confirmed the shelves containing food items were only 4.5 inches above the floor. 2. FDA Food Code Section 4-602.11 Equipment Food-Contact Surfaces and Utensils, 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-02-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 3. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a progressive lung disease characterized by increasing breathlessness). An admission MDS assessment, dated 3/3/24 documented it was somewhat important for Resident #36 to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read; listen to music he likes; to do things with group of people, and be around animals such as pets. Resident #36's care plan, dated 12/14/24, did not address his preferences for his activities. Resident #36 was observed in his room on 2/18/25 at 4:28 PM. A calendar of activities was observed posted on the wall by the door. Resident #36 stated he was not interested in participating in any of the activities in the facility. Resident #36 was again observed to be in his room on 2/19/25 at 10:12 AM, and on 2/20/25 at 9:27 AM, sitting on his bed. There were no books, newspapers, or magazines observed in his room. On 2/20/25 at 10:51 AM, the CEO reviewed Resident #36's care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #8) whose care plans were reviewed. This deficient practice created the risk of adverse outcomes if care and services were not provided due to care plans not being revised as resident's needs changed. Findings include: The CMS SOM, Appendix PP, dated 8/8/24, documented a resident's care plan must be reviewed after each assessment and revised based on changing goals, preferences, and needs of the resident and in response to current interventions. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including bipolar and psychotic disorders. Resident #8's physician orders documented: -Depakote (anticonvulsant to treat bipolar) was discontinued on 6/20/24. -Mirtazapine (antidepressant) was discontinued on 6/20/24. -Lorazepam (antianxiety),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received oxygen therapy per physician orders. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #36) reviewed for oxygen therapy. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if residents' respiratory needs were not met. Findings include: The facility's Oxygen Therapy policy and procedure, revised 8/4/23 directed staff to verify physician's order prior to initiating oxygen therapy. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a progressive lung disease characterized by increasing breathlessness). A care plan, initiated 2/26/24, documented Resident #36 used supplemental oxygen related to shortness of breath. The care plan directed staff to administer oxygen via nasal cannula as ordered. A physician assistant's progress notes, dated 2/19/24, documented Resident #36 had oxygen levels greater than…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, medication error reports, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were protected from significant medication errors. This was true for 2 of 2 residents (#42 and #48) reviewed for medication errors. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if residents received the wrong dosage of medications. Findings include: The facility policy for Oral Medication Administration, dated 1/1/18, included the direction for nursing staff to validate the order against the medication packaging, confirm correct dose, correct route, and time/frequency. 1. Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including amputation of the left and right great toe, gangrene (a condition where the tissue dies due to lack of blood supply), and disease of the spleen. A Medication Error Report, dated 1/13/25, documented the following: -A photocopy of a prescription, dated 1/7/25, documented oxycodone (a narcotic used to treat pain), 5 mg…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #2) whose records were reviewed for quality of care related to following medication and treatment orders. This failure created the potential to adversely affect residents whose care and services were not delivered according to their physician orders. Findings include: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including olecranon (elbow) fracture, Parkinson's Disease, and acute respiratory failure. Her record documented medication administration discrepancies including an AM medication given in the evening and medications crushed into food without an order. Resident #2's record included 32 Daily Skilled Nursing Notes, between the dates of 7/5/24 through 8/13/24, documented Resident #2's medications were crushed and added to applesauce, pudding, or yogurt when given to her. On 8/12/24 at 12:31 PM, LPN #4 stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-14 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 medications were reconciled and removed from a medication cart when discontinued for 1 of 3 medication carts observed. This was true for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #105) and created the potential for harm for 19 residents who received medications from the cart due to an increased risk for medication administration errors. Additionally, this failure created an increased risk for medication diversion. Findings include: Resident #105 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including metabolic acidosis (a buildup of too much acid in the body resulting in kidney failure), diabetes, and hypertension. On 10/29/24 at 3:45 PM, the facility's medication cart for the 200 and 400 halls was inspected with LPN #1 present. LPN #1 was observed to remove a blister pack from the cart and began to prepare a medication disposal kit to destroy the medication. The blister pack contained 31 tablets of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 medications were labeled correctly for 1 of 3 carts observed. This failure created the potential for harm if the resident who was prescribed the medication (Resident #104) received the wrong dose of his medication. Findings include: Resident #104 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including left arm fracture, heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), and pain. Resident #104's October 2024 MAR documented her prescribed oxycodone (a semi-synthetic opioid used for pain) 5 mg every four hours as needed for pain was discontinued on 10/24/24 and replaced with a new order for oxycodone 5 mg, four times a day (every 6 hours). On 10/29/24 at 3:45 PM, the 300 Hall medication cart was inspected with LPN #1 present. Resident #104's blister pack label for her oxycodone 5 mg stated every 4 hours as needed. The label did not reflect the updated order of four times a day (every 6…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-11 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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, policy review, record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were obtained for supplemental oxygen use for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #16) and failed to ensure staff changed and dated residents' oxygen tubing and humidification bottles per physician orders and facility policy for 2 of 15 residents (#16 and #37) reviewed for oxygen use. These deficient practices placed Resident #16 and Resident #37 at risk for respiratory infections due to growth of pathogens in oxygen humidifiers or tubing, and Resident #16 at risk for respiratory distress from receiving too little or too much oxygen. Findings include: The facility's Oxygen Therapy policy, revised 8/4/23, documented residents received respiratory treatments and monitoring, per physician orders, standards of practice and care plan. The amount, method and duration of oxygen usage and diagnosis were identified on the resident's treatment record per physician orders and care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-11 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 offered or received influenza or pneumococcal pneumonia immunizations. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #16) reviewed for immunizations. This failure placed Resident #16 at risk for harm should he experience illness from contracting pneucoccoal pneumonia or influenza. Findings include: Resident #16 was admitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including heart failure, respiratory failure, and sleep apnea (sleep disorder in which breathing frequently stops and starts). The Facility's Pneumococcal Program policy, revised 2/22/22, and the Influenza Program policy, revised 8/1/23, stated the resident and/or their representative would receive education regarding immunizations for influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia . The policies also stated the resident would be offered and administered the immunizations unless it was medically contraindicated, the resident had already had an immunization for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-11 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — isolatedEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 12 hours of in-service education per year for 3 of 3 CNAs (CNA #1, CNA #2, and CNA #3) reviewed for sufficient and competent CNA staffing. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from staff who are not adequately trained in competencies to meet residents' needs. Findings include: On 1/11/24, the prior year's in-service training was requested for CNA #1, CNA #2, and CNA #3. The facility's Administrator stated that in-service training was not provided since the facility's change of ownership one year ago. He confirmed CNA #1, CNA #2, and CNA #3 had not completed the required 12 in-service hours in the past year.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-08-14
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CASCADIA HEALTHCARE — 46 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 3.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
The other 45 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 45; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASCADIA IDAHO OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/01/2023 |
| CASCADIA HC GROUP LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/05/2025 |
| CASCADIA HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/01/2023 |
| CASCADIA HOLDCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/05/2025 |
| HAMMOND, OWEN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/01/2023 |
| LAFORTE, STEPHEN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/05/2025 |
| NELSON, TIMOTHY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/05/2025 |
| IDAHO FALLS 840 REALTY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/05/2025 |
| WHITE OAK HEALTHCARE FINANCE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 08/11/2022 |
| CASCADIA SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/17/2025 |
| DAVIS, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/03/2025 |
| THOMSON, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.
7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $205K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in ID
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.
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 135092. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-02, 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.