Life Care Center of Idaho Falls
2725 East 17th Street, Idaho Falls, ID 83406 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 109 certified beds · (208) 529-4567 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (33) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $13,247 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-10)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 23% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.4% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.2% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 2.0% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.0% | 15.1% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.8% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.1% | 16.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.0% | 16.3% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.3% | 3.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.9% | 22.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.1% | 20.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.2% | 86.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.4% | 17.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.18 | 1.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.17 | 1.66 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
69.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 174 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 79.7% 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 59 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 69% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | 69.9%CMS range 62.4–75.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.5%CMS range 6.2–11.2 | 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 | 79.7% | 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 | 64.4% | 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 | 69.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.5% | 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 | 1.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.2%CMS range 3.1–8.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 109 beds and averages 71.5 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 4.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.15 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.47 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.55 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.40 to 0.54 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
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.
33 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-01-10 · 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 policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to honor residents' Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and Do Not Intubate (DNI) orders, and to ensure residents and their representatives received assistance to exercise their right to formulate an advanced directive. This was true for 1 of 18 residents (#24) whose records were reviewed for advanced directives. This deficient practice caused actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm or adverse outcomes if residents' wishes were not followed or documented. Findings include: The facility's Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) policy, dated [DATE], documented the facility should ensure resident preferences and physician orders related to CPR and other advance directive issues are communicated so that staff know immediately what action to take or not take when an emergency arises. 1. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including C2 level cervical…
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 · D2026-03-19 · 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 residents (Resident #63) 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, reviewed 9/15/25, documented the facility will ensure that each resident who requests to self-administer medications is assessed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to determine if the resident is safe to self-administer medications. Procedure 4. The interdisciplinary assessment will be completed in the electronic medication record, and results reviewed with the resident and/or responsible party .Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including multiple myeloma (cancer…
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 before2026-03-19 · 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 policy review, 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 4 of 24 residents (#4, #33, #42, and #67) 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:The facility's Advance Directives policy, last reviewed 12/1/25, documented All residents or their responsible parties receive materials concerning their rights under applicable laws to make decisions regarding their medical care including.the formation of advance directives upon admission.Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including Polyneuropathy (a condition involving damage to multiple peripheral nerves) and diabetes. Resident #42's medical record had…
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 before2026-03-19 · 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, interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a safe, clean, and homelike environment. This was true for 1 of 18 resident rooms and other areas throughout the facility which were observed. This deficient practice created the potential for diminished quality of life and resident safety including infection and cross-contamination. Findings include: The facility's Daily Room Cleaning policy, revised date 10/28/25, documented Procedure 4. Daily cleaning of resident bathrooms b. Clean the toilet bowl daily. The facility's Housekeeping Services - Cleaning Resident Shower Room policy, issued date 10/28/25, documented Procedure: Cleaning Resident Shower Room - Routine Cleaning (Daily) 1.b. Housekeeping should clean resident shower/bath area twice daily.The following areas were observed for clean and homelike environment: On 3/16/26 at 4:32 PM, observed in Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]:Toilet with thick black ring of debris…
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 · D2026-03-19 · 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 policy review, record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a written notice of transfer and bed hold policy was provided to residents or their representatives when residents were transferred to the hospital. This was true for 2 of 2 residents (#7 and #33) reviewed for hospital transfers. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial distress if residents and their representatives were not made aware of or able to exercise their rights related to transfers from the facility. Findings include:The facility's Discharge Process and Bed Holds policy, reviewed 12/1/25, documented:- under Notice before transfer, Before a facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility must - (i) Notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand. - under Notice of bed-hold policy and return, Before a nursing facility transfers a resident to a…
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 before2026-03-19 · 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 record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain a person-centered comprehensive care plan for residents. This was true for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #24) whose record were reviewed for comprehensive care plans. This created the potential for harm when staff were not informed of person-centered care and treatment interventions. Findings include: The facility's Area of Focus: Care Planning - Baseline, Comprehensive, and Routine Updates policy, review date 12/4/25, documented.develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident.Selecting interventions / planning care - identify and implement interventions and treatments to address the individual's physical, functional, and psychosocial needs, concerns, problems, and risks.the comprehensive care plan must be updated with each MDS assessment and periodically.Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-19 · 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 follow physician orders of delivering specific medications when residents do not have bowel movement within 72 hours for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #13) whose records were reviewed for bowel and bladder care. This failed practice created the potential for residents to experience discomfort when medications were not administered according to the physician's order. Findings include:The facility's Bowel Protocol policy, reviewed date 9/15/25, documented Procedure 2. The facility in coordination with the resident's attending practitioner will implement standing orders to address a lack of bowel movement.Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including Hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease and respiratory failure.Resident #13's medication administration record documented the following medication orders; Senna Tablet 8.6 mg - give 3 tablets by mouth as needed 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 · Dcited before2026-03-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the State Operations Manual - Appendix PP, review of the State Agency's Long-Term Care Reporting Portal, record review, the facility's I&A reports, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accident hazards for 2 of 3 residents (#4 and #65) whose a) fall was not documented timely, and b) whose rooms were observed for environmental safety. This failure increased the potential for avoidable accidents to go unnoticed. Findings include:The State Operations Manual, Appendix PP revised 7/23/25, documented extension cords should not be used to take the place of adequate wiring in a facility.extension cords should be connected to only one device to prevent overloading of the circuit. The facility's Incident and Reportable Event Management policy, reviewed 12/3/25, documented the following:-The facility must ensure that the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices…
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 before2026-03-19 · 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, facility policy, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory services as ordered by the physician. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #39) whose records were reviewed for respiratory services. This failure created the potential for residents to experience increased fatigue and low oxygen levels. Findings include:The facility's Oxygen Administration policy dated 3/3/26, documented oxygen orders should include the specific liter flow required by the resident.Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including stroke and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (a long-term condition where the lungs cannot adequately transfer oxygen into the blood). Resident #39's physician's oxygen ordered dated 11/12/23, documented oxygen 1 liter/NC continuously.Resident #39's care plan dated 7/21/22, documented provide supplemental oxygen, settings per MD order. Resident #39's MAR documented oxygen was administered…
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 · D2026-03-19 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that prior to the placement of bed rails, alternatives to bed rails were attempted and how the alternatives failed to meet the resident's assessed needs. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #72) reviewed for bed rails. This failure created the potential for harm due to the risk for injury, entrapment and/or death. Findings include:The facility's Bed Rails - Safe and Effective Use of Bed Rails policy, reviewed date 9/3/25, documented.Procedure 1. Residents will be assessed upon admission, readmission, or upon initiation utilizing the Evaluation for Use of Bed Rails Assessment. 3. If a bed rail will be utilized, the risks and benefits of bed rail(s) usage will be reviewed with the resident and/or resident representative, and consent will be obtained prior to installation of the bed rails or as soon as practically possible. Resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with…
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 · D2026-03-19 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, State Operation Manual, Appendix PP, 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:The State Operation Manual, Appendix PP revised on 8/8/24, documented S483.35(g) Nurse Staffing Information. S483.35(g)(1) Data requirements. The facility must post the following information on a daily basis: (i) Facility name. (ii) The current date. (iii) The total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: (A) Registered nurses. (B) Licensed practical nurses or licensed vocational nurses (as defined under State law). (C) Certified nurse aides. (iv) Resident census.On 3/17/26 at 12:31 PM, observed the daily staffing sheet for 1/20/26 was missing CNA number of staff present…
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 22 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-19 · 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
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review it was determined the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were tracked and kept secure from potential theft and/or diversion. This was true for 2 of 2 medication carts reviewed. This failure created the potential for undetected misuse and/or diversion of controlled medications and had the potential to affect all residents who received controlled medication in the facility. Findings include: The facility's Inventory Control of Controlled Substances policy, revision date 08/01/24, documented.1. Procedure 1.1 Facility should ensure the incoming and outgoing nurses count all Schedule II controlled substances and other medications with a risk of abuse or diversion at the change of each shift.and document the results on a Controlled Substance Count Verification/Shift Change Sheet. 2. Facility should ensure facility staff count all Schedule III-IV controlled substances in accordance with facility policy and applicable law. On 3/18/26 at 8:17 AM, observed during the Hall 2 medication cart audit, the Narcotic Card Item…
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 · D2026-03-19 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed appropriately for adequate indications for the use of opioid pain medications. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #74) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure created the potential for residents to experience adverse consequences or increased risk of death. Findings include:The facility's Pain Management policy dated 12/2/25, documented the facility must ensure that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences.Assess pain every shift and record on eMAR. Always indicate which pain scale was used and document the type of pain the resident is experiencing. Resident #74's physician order for medication for mild pain documented Acetaminophen Tablet 325 MG, give 2 tablets by mouth every 8 hours as needed for mild acute pain for 30 Days, not to exceed 3000 mg/day.Resident #74…
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 before2026-03-19 · 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 observations, staff interviews, policy review, and manufacturer manual it was determined the facility failed to ensure biologicals were labeled when opened, and medications were properly stored in a locked compartment. This was true for the facility. These deficient practices created the potential for use of expired biologicals, and undetected access to medications by unauthorized personnel. Findings include: The facility's Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications and Biologicals policy, revision date [DATE], documented Procedure 11. Once any medication or biological package is opened, the facility should follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates. The Assure Prism Blood Glucose Monitoring System Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Reference Manual documented, .when you first open a control solution bottle, record the discard date (date opened plus 3 months) in the space provided on the label. The facility's General Dose Preparation and Medication Administration…
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 before2026-03-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 infection control and prevention practices were maintained for residents' Durable Medical Equipment (DME). This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #71) reviewed during environmental observations. This failure had the potential to impact residents by placing them at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include:The facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) and Plan revised 6/2/25, documented under Implementing Strategies to Achieve the Goals.4. Methods to reduce the risks associated with procedures, medical equipment, and medical devices, including the following:a. Appropriate storage, cleaning, disinfection, and/or disposal of supplies and equipmentResident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and hypertension.On 3/16/26 at approximately 8:45 AM, observed Resident #71 operating her power…
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 before2025-09-02 · 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 policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to honor residents Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and Do Not Intubate (DNI) orders. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #5) whose record was reviewed for code status. This deficient practice created the potential for harm or adverse outcomes if residents' wishes were not followed or documented. Findings include:Resident #5 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic kidney disease and diabetes.A facility investigation documented on [DATE], Resident #5 was found unresponsive by CNA staff and nursing staff were notified. Nursing staff performed an assessment and determined Resident #5 was a DNR. LPN #1 then entered Resident #5's room with a POST document in hand and stated she was a full code and CPR was started. This POST document was later found to be for a different resident and not Resident #5. Nursing staff called 911 for an ambulance.…
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 before2025-09-02 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were tracked and kept secure from potential theft and/or diversion. This was true for 1 of 1 medication carts reviewed. This failure created the potential for undetected misuse and/or diversion of controlled medications and had the potential to affect all residents who received controlled medication in the facility. Findings include:On 9/2/25 at 12:19 PM, during Hall 2 medication cart review, observed the narcotic accountability record, dated 9/1/25 to 9/2/25, with 1 licensed nurse signature not documented. On 9/2/25 at 12:32 PM, RN #1 stated two nurses should have signed the narcotic accountability record when they accepted the medication cart or released the medication cart. On 9/2/25 at 12:40 PM, the Admissions Nurse stated two nurses should have signed the narcotic accountability record when they accepted the medication cart or released the medication cart.
- Potential for harm · F2025-01-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, food code review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner. These deficiencies had the potential to affect all residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination of food and adverse health outcomes, including food-borne illnesses. Findings include: The FDA (Food Drug Administration) 2022 Food Code, Section 3-501.17 documented ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1. During the initial kitchen inspection conducted on 1/6/25 at 7:00 AM, the following was observed: Walk-in refrigerator: - 8 individual yogurts with expired dates of 12/28/24 - A sandwich wrapped in cellophane labeled GC and dated 1/4/25 - An open…
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 before2025-01-10 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments included correct assessment information. This was true for 8 of 18 Residents (#4, #6, #12, #29, #40, #54, #58, and #65) whose records were reviewed for accuracy. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if residents were not assessed and/or monitored due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: The Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), revised 10/1/2024, documents section K0520 Nutritional Approaches, was to be checked if a resident receives nutrition from a feeding tube. The RAI, revised 10/1/2024, documents section A1500, PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review), was to be coded yes when a PASRR Level II screening determines a resident has a serious mental illness and/or mental retardation, or related condition. 1. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a…
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 · E2025-01-10 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 4 of 18 residents (#12, #23, #59, and #65) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed residents at risk of 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 Care Planning-Baseline, Comprehensive, and Routine Updates policy, revision date 11/25/24, documented the facility would monitor the individual's progress and adjusts interventions to their care plan as needed. 1. Resident #12 was initially admitted to the facility on the 10/14/24, and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including bipolar disorder (a major mental mood disorder) and post-traumatic stress disorder (a major mental illness). Resident #12's care plan, dated 11/22/24, documented she had clostridium…
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 before2025-01-10 · 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 review of facility policy, Idaho Administrative Code, and the State Operations Manual, observation, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a safe, clean, and homelike environment. This was true for 7 of 48 resident 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 facility's Water Temperature Inspection policy dated 1/15/24, documented satisfactory temperature range is maintained per state regulations. Idaho Administrative Code 16.03.02 section 120.13.c, documented the temperature of hot water at plumbing fixtures used by residents is between 105 degrees F and 120 degrees F. State Operations Manual Appendix PP pg 342, documents water temperature of 124 degrees F will cause a 3rd degree burn to occur within 3 minutes, and water temperatures of 120 degrees F will cause a 3rd degree burn to occur within 5 minutes. 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 · D2025-01-10 · 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 refer residents for further evaluation when residents were diagnosed with a major mental illness. This was true for 4 of 7 residents (#12, #51, #60, and #219) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II evaluations. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm if resident's specialized services for mental health needs were not evaluated by an appropriate state-designated authority. Finding include: The facility's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) policy revision date 9/26/24, documented a positive Level I screen necessitates an in-depth evaluation of the individual by the state-designated authority, known as PASARR Level II, which must be conducted prior to admission to a nursing facility. 1. Resident #12 was initially admitted to the facility on the 10/14/24, and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including bipolar disorder…
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 before2025-01-10 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow a resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 1 of 18 resident's (Resident #41) health and wellbeing. Findings include: Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and seizures. Resident #41's care plan dated 11/27/24, documented under Bed Mobility: Dependent, Resident #41's bones are fragile, use 2 staff members. Resident #41's medical chart listed under tasks, ADL - bed mobility, the following dates documented that one CNA or NA assisted Resident #41 with mobility in her bed; - 12/27/24 at 6:25 PM, CNA #1 - 12/28/24 at 12:09 AM, CNA #2 - 12/29/24 at 6:51 PM, NA #2 - 12/30/24 at 11:47 AM, CNA #3 - 12/31/24 at 1:36 PM, NA #1 and 6:47 PM, CNA #4 - 1/2/25 at 11:43 PM, CNA#5 - 1/5/25 at 3:52 PM, CNA #6 - 1/8/25 at 4:39 PM, CNA #7 On 1/9/25 at 11:23 AM, the DON stated the CNAs and NAs…
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 · D2025-01-10 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to professional standards of practice. This was true for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #222) observed during medication administration. These failed practices created the potential for residents to experience adverse effects when their medications were not administered according to the physician's order. Findings include: The facility's Refusal of Care or Treatment policy, dated 11/28/22, documented if a resident refuses medication or treatment, the facility, will: - notify the resident and/or the resident representative of the risks versus benefits of the refusal. - explore the reason for the refusal and possible alternatives with the resident and/or resident representative. - refer to the Omnicare Resident Medication Rights policy which documented the facility should notify the physician of a resident's refusal of medication/treatment for periods greater…
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 before2025-01-10 · 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 observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of nursing practice were followed for 2 of 12 residents (#12 and #65) reviewed for quality of care. Residents were at risk for adverse outcomes when they did not have physician orders to provide care to meet residents' needs. These failed practices had the potential to adversely affect residents whose care and services were not followed according to accepted standards of practice. Findings include: 1. Resident #12 was initially admitted to the facility on the 10/14/24, and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including bipolar disorder (a major mental mood disorder) and post-traumatic stress disorder (a major mental illness). On 1/6/25 at 11:58 AM, a wound was observed to Resident #12's left knee. On 1/7/25 at 8:10 AM, Resident #12's medical record did not document orders for the wounds on her left knee. On 1/8/25 at 10:38 AM, observed with LPN #1 present, 2…
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 before2025-01-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the State Operations Manual, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accident hazards for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #30) whose room was observed for environmental safety. This deficient practice had the potential to cause physical harm if a power strip used to plug in a medical device was to overheat and cause a fire. Findings include: The State Operations Manual, Appendix PP revised 8/8/24, documented power strips may not be used as a substitute for adequate electrical outlets in a facility and are not designed to be used with medical devices in patient care areas. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with atrial fibrillation (irregular rapid heart rhythm that can lead to blood clots in the heart). A physician order dated 10/9/23, documented Resident #30 was to use sequential compression devices (inflatable sleeve to prevent blood clots) to bilateral lower extremities two times a day for lymphedema…
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 · D2025-01-10 · 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 facility standing order policy, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses performed tasks which they had the knowledge, skills, and competencies. This was true for 3 of 4 licensed nurses observed. This had the potential for adverse effects for all residents when the facility's standing orders were not followed. Findings include: The facility's Standing Orders, dated 2/15/24, documented for oxygen saturations less than 88%, titrate supplemental oxygen 1-4 liters per minute via nasal cannula or mask. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and seizures. Resident #41's medical record documented the following SpO2 (peripheral oxygen saturation, is a measurement of the amount of oxygen in your blood) with no documented follow-up to address the low SpO2. - 8/8/24 at 4:50 PM, SpO2 was 86% RA, RN #2 - 8/9/24 at 8:03 AM, SpO2 was 85% RA, RN #3 - 8/9/24 at 1:04…
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 before2025-01-10 · 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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications available for residents were stored appropriately. This was true for 2 of 4 residents (#51 and #58), whose rooms were inspected. This failure created the potential for adverse effects if residents self-administered medications inappropriately. Findings include: The facility's Self Administration of Medications policy, revision date 10/13/21, documented the facility would: - ensure that each resident who requested to self-administer medication would be assessed by the interdisciplinary team to determine if the resident is safe to self-administer medications. - after the interdisciplinary team and primary physician review the assessment and determined the resident can safely self-administer, or self-administer and store medications at bedside, a physician's order would be obtained and the care plan for the resident would reflect the self-administration. - allow bedside medication storage to be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-10 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the State Operations Manual, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to employ a qualified director of food and nutrition services. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who received meals prepared in the facility's kitchen. Findings include: The State Operations Manual Appendix PP, revised 8/8/24, documented the director of food and nutrition services must at a minimum meet one of the following qualifications: - be a Certified Dietary Manager; or - a Certified Food Service Manager; or - has similar national certification for food service management and safety from a national certifying body; or - has an associate's or higher degree in food service management or in hospitality, if the course study includes food service or restaurant management, from an accredited institution of higher learning; or - has 2 or more years of experience in the position of director of food and nutrition services in a nursing facility setting and has completed a course of study in food safety and management, by no later 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 before2025-01-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on 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 for 4 of 18 residents (#22, #51, #59, and #222) observed for oxygen and respiratory equipment use, and 2 of 2 residents (#12 and #41) observed for proper cleaning of glucometers. These failures put residents at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include: 1. The facility's Oxygen Administration (Safety, Storage, Maintenance) policy, revision date 10/11/24, documented: - oxygen and respiratory supplies are stored in a bag labeled with resident's name when not in use. - clean exterior of concentrators weekly. - external filter should be checked daily and all dust should be removed. Filters should be washed with soap and water once a week and as needed. The following was observed for proper storage of oxygen supplies: a) On 1/6/25 at 8:28 AM, observed Resident #51's oxygen concentrator with white substance on the top and white fuzz covering the filter. b) On 1/7/24 at…
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 · D2025-01-10 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the review of records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure glucometers were calibrated to maintain accuracy of results for 2 of 4 medications carts (Hall 300 and Hall 400) observed. The Assure Prism Blood glucose Monitoring System manual documented control solution tests are used to check the meter and the test strips to ensure they are working properly. The control solution test should be done: - when using the meter for the first time. -whenever a new bottle or box on individually wrapped test strips is opened. - if the meter or test strips do not function properly. - if the resident's symptoms are inconsistent with the blood glucose test results and you feel that the meter or test strips are not working properly. - if the meter is dropped or damaged. On 1/8/25 at 2:50 PM, the glucometer solution test logbooks were reviewed and revealed the following: - Hall 400 glucometer solution test was not consistently done for the month of December 2024 to January 2025. - Hall 300 glucometer solution test was not consistently done for the month 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 · Dcited before2024-03-07 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS) had correct assessment information. This was true for 2 of 5 residents (#44 and #65) reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments. This deficiency created the potential for residents to not have their care needs met due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: 1. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), and acute and chronic respiratory failure. During an observation in Resident #44's room on 3/5/24 at 11:24 AM, a BIPAP machine (A type of ventilator that helps with breathing for some medical problems. It delivers positive air pressure when you breathe in and out, but higher pressure when you breathe in) was on the bedside table next to Resident #44's bed, and the tubing and mask were placed in a basket…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-07 · 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 policy review, record review, observation,and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was obtained for a resident's use of a Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BIPAP) machine. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #44) reviewed for continuous positive airway pressure therapy devices. This failure caused the potential for Resident #44 to receive incorrect airway pressure therapy and put her at risk of respiratory distress. Findings include: The facility's CPAP/BIPAP Administration Policy, reviewed 9/28/23, documented when CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) or BIPAP is ordered, the following must be included in the written order: 1. Mode (i.e., CPAP, BIPAP, CPAP Auto set etc.), 2. Pressure setting, 3. Size and type of mask (i.e., small, nasal, or full-face mask.), 4. Liters of oxygen (if ordered.), and 5. Frequency of use (example- at night when sleeping and with naps as tolerated). Resident #44 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.
“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
$13,247 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $13,247 — penalty dated 2025-01-10
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 193; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEVELOPERS INVESTMENT COMPANY INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/09/1994 |
| PRESTON, FORREST | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/09/1994 |
| BUTNER, NANCY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/16/2018 |
| DELOACH, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2025 |
| DUCHARME, JULIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/22/2024 |
| LAY, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/09/2018 |
| SWANKER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2022 |
| CROSS, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/01/1994 |
| HENRY, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/16/1999 |
| THURMOND, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/22/2000 |
| GEM MEDICAL INVESTORS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/1994 |
| LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2025 |
| BAKER, WALLACE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2025 |
| FLETCHER, TODD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
| PRESTON, AUBREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
| ZIEGLER, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 16 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.
3 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 $2.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 23% 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
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 135091. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-19, 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.