Idaho State Veterans Home - Pocatello

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 66 beds and averages 52.9 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.91 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.25 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.23 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.75 to 1.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

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

23 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2025-08-07 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — widespread
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents and their representative received assistance to exercise their right to formulate an Advance Directive. This was true for 10 of 54 residents (#1, #2, #4, #9, #19, #26, #27, #29, #46, and #55) 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 Residents Rights Regarding Treatment and Advance Directives policy dated March 2025, documented It is the policy of this facility to support and facilitate a resident’s right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue medical or surgical treatment and to formulate advance directives. a. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including coronary artery disease, GERD (a chronic digestive disorder where stomach acid frequently…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the facility Bowel Management Protocol, record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to follow the facility bowel care standing order of delivering specific medications when residents do not have BM within 72 hours for 5 of 16 Residents (#5, #9, #11, #26, and #35) who 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 Bowel Management Protocol dated 4/2018, documented a resident's bowel movement(s) will be documented in Point of Care every shift. The licensed nurse will write and implement standing orders for progressive bowel elimination intervention as follows:- Step 1 - Bisacodyl tab give 10 mg by mouth as needed for constipation if no BM X 48-72 hours.- Step 2 - Bisacodyl suppository, insert 1 suppository rectally as needed for constipation if no BM X 12-24 hours following Bisacodyl tabs…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #19) observed for covered urinary drainage bag. This deficient practice had the potential for residents to experience embarrassment, and low feelings of self-worth. Findings include: Resident #19 was admitted on [DATE] with readmit on 6/17/24, with multiple diagnoses including heart failure, diabetes, and obstructive uropathy (condition when urine cannot drain through the urinary tract). On 8/4/25 at 2:31 PM, Resident #19's urinary drainage bag was uncovered and visible from the open doorway of his room. On 8/4/25 at 3:26 PM, the DON stated the urinary drainage bag should have been covered and was not.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's rights to be free from abuse were protected. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #61) whose record was reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse. This failure placed residents at risk for potential abuse and potential physical and psychosocial harm. Findings include:The facility Freedom from Resident Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, and Exploitation policy dated 2024, documented each resident.has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse.Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including dementia and history of falling. Resident #29’s care plan dated 9/19/24, documented as a focus, I can be intrusive into others space while interventions are listed as intervene, redirect and remove environment as needed and observe and report signs and symptoms of me posing danger to self and others and intervene as needed. Resident #61 was…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents Minimum Data Set (MDS) had correct assessment information. This was true for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #46) reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments. This deficient practice created the potential for residents to have their mental health needs not met due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include:Chapter 3 of The Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), revised 10/1/2024, documented if a resident is currently considered by the state level II PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) process to have a serious mental illness, then section A1500 of the MDS should be marked yes.Chapter 5 of the RAI documented if an MDS assessment is found to have errors that incorrectly reflect the resident's status, that assessment must be corrected.Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including hypertension, diabetes, and PTSD (a serious mental…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to refer residents for further evaluation when residents were diagnosed with a major mental illness. This was true for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #35) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II evaluations. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm if residents' specialized services for mental health needs were not evaluated by an appropriate state-designated authority. Findings include:Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including dementia and PTSD.Resident #35 Level I PASRR dated 6/6/25, was generated in Arizona and had not documented PTSD, which was documented in his medical record diagnoses. A Level II PASRR for Resident #35 had not been requested or completed as required in Idaho. On 8/6/25 at 2:35 PM, the DON stated they should have created an updated Level I PASRR documenting PTSD and requested a Level II PASRR and did not.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan. This was true for 2 of 16 residents (#9 and #35) whose care plans were reviewed. This deficient practice of not following care plans placed residents at risk to their health and wellbeing with negative outcomes if services were not provided or provided incorrectly. Findings include:a. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including diabetes and heart failure.On 8/4/25 at 8:30 AM, observed CNA #1 transfer Resident #9 from his wheelchair to his bed using a sit to stand device.Resident #9's physician orders related to assistive devices documented transfer stability for inability to bear weight related to CVA and left side hemiplegia and weakness.Resident #9's care plan documented that resident is a two person assist when transferred using a sit to stand device.b. Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
  Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate use of over the counter (OTC) medication left at bedside, and controlled medications were tracked and kept secure from potential theft and/or diversion. This was true for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #55) and the facility. This failure created the potential for undetected misuse of medications and/or diversion of controlled medications and had the potential to affect all residents who received medication in the facility. Findings include: a. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including epilepsy and aphasia (a neurological condition that affects a person's ability to communicate). On 8/4/25 at 8:15 AM, observed in Resident #55’s room on the bedside table a bottle of Tylenol and Nyquil. There was a physician's order for the Tylenol but not the Nyquil. 8/6/25 at 2:41 PM, the DON stated residents often bring in OTC medicines and don’t tell nursing staff of the recent purchase.…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and kept secure, and biologicals were labeled when opened. This was true for 1 of 16 Residents (Resident #46) and the facility. These deficient practices created the potential for theft or misuse of medication and the use of expired biologicals. Findings include: 1. The following was observed for biologicals. On [DATE] at 10:25 AM, one set of glucose test solutions were not dated with the open date or the expiration date. On [DATE] at 10:27 AM, LPN #2 stated the glucose test solutions were not dated and should have been. On [DATE] at 10:50 AM, RN #9 stated glucose test solution bottles should be dated when opened and were not. 2. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including hypertension, diabetes, and PTSD. On [DATE] at 9:40 AM, Resident #46’s morning medications was observed sitting in a medication cup on his bedside table in his room with no licensed…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment. This was true for 4 of 16 residents (#9, #21, #22, and #36) and the facility observed for infection control. These failures put residents at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include: 1.Resident #9 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with readmission on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including coronary artery disease and diabetes. Resident #9’s medication orders included administer Novolog 100u/ml per sliding scale and Glargine 19u every AM. On 8/6/25 at 8:35 AM, observed RN #2 place a syringe containing Novolog insulin and a syringe containing Glargine insulin on Resident #9’s bed next to him as she cleaned the injection site. RN #2 then picked up each syringe off the bed and administered the insulin to Resident #9. On 8/6/25 at 8:38 AM, RN #2 stated she should have placed 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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