McCall Rehabilitation and Care Center
418 Floyde Street, McCall, ID 83638 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 65 certified beds · (208) 634-2112 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 18.1% | 15.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.4% | 5.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.2% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 2.0% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 15.2% | 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 | 1.7% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.5% | 16.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.3% | 16.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.3% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.2% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.2% | 22.1% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.4% | 20.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.6% | 86.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.7% | 17.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.3% 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 48 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 75.0% 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 20 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 51% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 54.3%CMS range 39.3–67.0 | 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 | 9.1%CMS range 5.7–14.5 | 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 | 75.0% | 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 | 65.0% | 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 | 70.0% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 2.8–10.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.88 | 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 65 beds and averages 32.0 residents a day — about 49% occupied, or roughly 33 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.23 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.35 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-07-24 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy 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 record review and observation it was determined the facility failed to ensure a qualified individual was employed with the knowledge and skill set to carry out the function of food and nutrition services. This deficient practice created the potential to affect 35 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for undetected weight loss and adverse health outcomes when the facility did not employ a qualified individual to meet all resident nutritional needs. Findings include: The facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting minutes, dated January 2025, documented under dietary services, the facility had a goal to enroll the Dietary Manager (DM) into a dietary manager certification training by the next quarter. The facility's QAPI meeting minutes dated April 2025, included confirmation of enrollment to the dietary manager certification training. On 7/23/25 at 10:43 AM, the DM stated she is not a Certified Dietary Manager. She stated she was currently enrolled in a training program and had 11 months left before…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-07-24 · 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
Number of residents sampled:Number of residents cited:SDP= GenesisUniverse= Facility wide Concerns with Food and Nutrition Services regarding kitchen sanitation. Based on observation, staff interview, and Food Code review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the kitchen equipment was maintained in sanitary condition and food was handled in a safe and sanitary manner. These deficient practices created the potential to affect 35 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential food contamination and adverse health outcomes, including food-borne illness. Findings include: The FDA Food Code Section 4-601.11 (C) Cleaning of Equipment and Utensils, documented nonfood-contact surfaces of equipment shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, food residue, and other debris. 1. On 7/23/25 at 10:59 AM, during a kitchen inspection a black kitchen aid mixer was observed sitting on a counter with white encrustations. On 7/23/25 at 11:05 AM, the DM stated the mixer was not in sanitary condition. 2. On 7/23/25 at 11:05 AM, a kitchen…
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 · E2019-07-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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, policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure neurological assessments were performed after unwitnessed falls and/or incidents involving a potential head injury, and medications were administered consistent with physician orders. This was true for 5 of 5 residents (#5, #19, #21, #22, and #27) reviewed for falls, and 1 of 8 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for medication administration. These failures created the potential for harm should residents experience undetected changes in neurological status and adverse effects from medications that were administered contrary to physician orders. Findings include: The facility's policy for Neurological Evaluation, revised May 2007, documented the following: * All incidents involving head trauma result in a comprehensive neurological assessment for a minimum of 72 hours. * A neurological assessment flowsheet was used for all residents who sustained head trauma due to falls or other incidents. *…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-26 · 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 the resident or the resident's representative received information and assistance to exercise their right to formulate an Advance Directive. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for an Advance Directive. The deficient practice created the potential for harm should resident's wishes regarding end of life or emergent care not be honored when they were incapacitated. Findings include: Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including vascular dementia and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #15's record did not contain an Advance Directive or documentation the facility provided Resident #15 or Resident #15's representative information on an Advance Directive, and offered assistance to develop an Advance Directive if desired. On 7/23/19 at 3:48 PM, the admission Coordinator reviewed Resident #15's record and said it did not include an Advance Directive. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-26 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 staff interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's representative was notified in a timely manner of a resident's significant change in condition which required hospitalization. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for notification of changes. This placed the resident at risk of inappropriate care and treatment due to lack of advocacy and involvement by their representative. Findings include: Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including dementia with behaviors. A Nurse's Progress Note, dated 5/20/19 at 5:24 PM, documented Resident #30 was attempting to exit the building. The facility staff were attempting to redirect him and Resident #30 became physically and verbally abusive to a staff member. The police, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and the physician were notified of the behaviors and Resident #30 was sent to the ER (emergency room) for an evaluation. Resident #30 was admitted to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-26 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate 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 record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's code status was documented on their baseline care plan. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #130) reviewed for baseline care plans. This failure created the potential for harm should a residents' wishes not be followed regarding their code status due to lack of information on the baseline care plan. Findings include: Resident #130 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, history of stroke, and left bundle branch block (a delay or blockage in the electrical impulse traveling through the heart). Resident #130's physician orders documented Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), dated 7/17/19. Resident #130's Preferred Intensity of Care form documented she was a DNR, and it was signed by her representative on 7/16/19. Resident #130's Initial Care Plan, dated 7/16/19, did not include documentation regarding her code status. On 7/25/19 at 2:50 PM, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-26 · 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, policy review, and resident, resident family member, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised and updated as care needs changed. This was true for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #13) whose care plans were reviewed. This failure created the potential for harm if cares and/or services were provided based on inaccurate information on the care plan. Findings include: The facility's policy for Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised [DATE], documented each resident's care plan was reviewed and/or revised by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) after each assessment. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease (a medical condition that affects blood vessels of the brain), aphasia (the loss of ability to understand or express speech), and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #13's care plan documented she was not to be resuscitated, Do Not Resuscitate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-26 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide showers and communication assistance as needed. This was true for 2 of 12 residents (#13 and #18) whose activities of daily living were reviewed. This failure placed the residents at risk of psychosocial distress related to embarrassment and/or isolation from not receiving showers and not being able to communicate. Findings include: 1. The facility's policy for Restorative Care, revised 11/2017, documented objectives for providing direct nursing care services that maintained optimum physical and mental health for the resident and meet all his medical treatment needs, and Participate in the retraining of the resident in self-care activities. Residents would be evaluated on their ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs), including the ability to understand speech and talk. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including cerebrovascular…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-26 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 resident and staff interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received restorative services through the restorative nursing program as needed. This was true for 2 of 2 residents (#9 and #13) reviewed for the restorative nursing program. This failure created the potential for residents to experience a decline in Range of Motion (ROM). Findings include: 1. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including age related physical disability, osteoarthritis, muscle wasting, and atrophy (a breakdown of tissues). A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 5/13/19, documented Resident #9 was to receive active ROM and walking therapy through the restorative nursing program. Resident #9's care plan, revised on 5/9/19, documented the restorative program was to provide active ROM exercises 5-6 times a week for 15 minutes. Resident #9's care plan, revised 6/26/19, documented the restorative program was also to provide walking assistance 5-6 times 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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PENNANT HEALTHCARE, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/30/2021 |
| ALLEN, DANIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| FARNSWORTH, STEPHEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/17/2018 |
| HAWKINS, ISAIAH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/09/2024 |
| SATO, AMI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/09/2024 |
| FLOYDE HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| STANDARD BEARER HEALTHCARE OP LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| THE ENSIGN GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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 $397K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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 135082. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-24, 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.