Temple View Transitional Care Center
660 South Second Street West, Rexburg, ID 83440 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 119 certified beds · (208) 356-0220 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (36) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 — 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 held steady at 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 | 7.2% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 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 | 1.4% | 2.0% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 36.2% | 15.1% | 6.5% | worse than 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 | 3.2% | 3.0% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.5% | 16.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.5% | 16.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.2% | 3.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.5% | 22.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.8% | 20.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 1.8% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.4% | 86.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 7.8% | 17.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.6% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.57 | 1.17 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 1.66 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
57.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 57 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.8% 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 24 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 57.4%CMS range 44.0–69.0 | 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 | 9.5%CMS range 5.9–14.7 | 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 | 45.8% | 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 | 29.2% | 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 | 33.3% | 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 | 6.1%CMS range 3.1–11.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 119 beds and averages 61.8 residents a day — about 52% occupied, or roughly 57 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 3.60 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.30 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.81 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.86 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
36 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 26 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-09 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a clean, safe, homelike environment. This was true for all residents who resided in the facility whose environment were observed. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if: a) residents were embarrassed by and/or felt the disrepair in the facility was unacceptable, disrespectful, or undignified or b) residents were injured due to unsafe areas in the facility. Findings include:The facility's Homelike Environment policy, undated, documented Temple View Transitional Care is committed to providing residents with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment that promotes dignity, independence, choice, and quality of life. This policy ensures compliance with federal regulations while supporting a person-centered care philosophy. The following areas were observed: a) On 1/5/26 at 8:12 AM, observed a fly strip covered with bugs in the middle of room [ROOM NUMBER].…
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 before2026-01-09 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of the State Operations Manual, and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat residents who needed assistance with eating their meals with dignity and respect. This failed practice had the potential to negatively affect resident's self-esteem, decreased enjoyment of meals and mealtime, and may impact resident's food and fluid intake. Findings include:On 1/5/26 at 11:37 AM, RNA #1 was observed standing next to the dining room table, spoon feeding Resident #34 when he was seated at the table eating his lunch.On 1/5/26 at 11:40 AM, RNA #1 stated she always stands so she can move around the room to help other residents if they need it. On 1/5/26 at 11:50 AM, the DON and the Regional Nurse stated staff should not be standing while feeding residents.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · 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 advanced directive. This was true for 2 of 17 residents (Resident #35 and #41) whose records were reviewed for advanced directives. This deficient practice created the potential for harm or adverse outcomes if residents' wishes were not followed or documented regarding their advance care planning. Findings include:The facility's Nursing Administration – Advance Directive Documentation policy, revision date December 2019, documented the facility shall include documentation in the resident's health record that, at the time of admission, the residents have been provided with written information regarding the advanced directives and whether the resident has executed such a document. The following resident's records did not contain documentation of an advanced directive or that the resident or the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive resident-centered care plans. This was true for 2 of 17 residents (#35 and #41) whose care plans were reviewed. These failures placed residents at risk of negative outcomes if services were not provided or provided incorrectly due to lack of information in their care plan. Findings include:The facility's Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning policy, revised April 2025, documented the facility IDT will develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered, culturally competent, and trauma-informed care plan for each resident within seven (7) days of completion of the Resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) and will include resident's needs identified in the comprehensive assessment, any specialized services as a result of PASARR recommendation, and resident's goals and desired outcomes, preferences for future discharge and discharge plan. The following was observed…
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 · D2026-01-09 · 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, resident and staff interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for 2 of 17 Residents (#2 and #46) reviewed for quality of care. Resident #2 and Resident #46 were at risk for adverse outcomes when physician orders were not written correctly and/or followed as ordered. This failed practice had the potential to adversely affect or harm residents whose care and services were not delivered according to accepted standards of clinical practices. Findings include:Resident #2 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including Left below knee amputation (BKA), Right above knee amputation (AKA) and diabetes.1. Resident #2's physician order documented Wound Vac to left BKA with continuous suction at 125mmHG Q shift. Order date 12.26.25Resident #2's Care Plan documented alterations in musculoskeletal status related to Left BKA and Right AKA. Date initiated…
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 before2026-01-09 · 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 observations, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were handled safely during transfers. This was true for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #35 and #68) reviewed for transfers. This failure had the potential to cause injury for residents requiring staff assistance with transfers. Findings include:The facility's Safe Resident Handling/Transfers policy, revision date 8/30/21, documented it is the policy of this facility that the residents will be transferred/handled safely. Use of gait belts or lifts may be used for residents as needed to provide safety for caregiver and patient during transfers. 1. Resident #35 was initially admitted to the facility 11/23/22 and readmitted [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including acute posthemorrhagic anemia (rapid blood loss leading to a sudden drop in red blood cells and oxygen delivery) and COPD (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath). On 1/5/26 at 8:12 AM, observed CNA #1 and CNA…
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 before2026-01-09 · 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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident received oxygen as prescribed by the provider. This was true for 2 of 17 residents (#9 and #30) reviewed for respiratory care. This failure created the potential for respiratory difficulties or impaired breathing. Findings include:Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (disease caused by damage to the airways that limit airflow) and depression. Resident #9's medical record included physician orders for oxygen 1.5 liters per minute via nasal cannula continuously. Order start date of 11/6/25. On 1/5/26 at 11:35 AM, observed Resident #9 sitting in the dining room with oxygen administered at 2L/min via nasal cannula. On 1/6/26 at 11:20 AM, observed Resident #9 sitting in her room with oxygen administered at 2L/min via nasal cannula from bedside oxygen concentrator. The bedside oxygen concentrator was labeled to administer at 2L/min. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · 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 17 residents (Resident #41) 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 Rail Policy revised August 2017, documented It is the policy of the facility to attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail. If a bed or side rail is used, the facility must ensure correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails.The facility should maintain evidence that it has provided sufficient information so that the resident or resident representative could make an informed decision. Information that the facility must provide to the resident, or resident representative include, but are not…
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 · D2026-01-09 · 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 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 2 of 3 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 1/7/26 at 4:40 PM, during the 200 Hall medication cart audit, observed the narcotic accountability sheet, dated 1/1/26 to 1/7/26, with 1 licensed nurse signature not documented. On 1/7/26 at 4:42 PM, CMA #1 stated two nurses should have signed the narcotic accountability sheet and she had not signed it when she accepted the medication cart today. On 1/7/26 at 4:45 PM, during the 100 Hall medication cart audit, observed the narcotic accountability sheet, dated 1/1/26 to 1/7/26, with 1 licensed nurse signature not documented. On 1/7/26 at 4:47 PM, LPN #2 stated two nurses should have signed the narcotic accountability sheet when they…
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 before2026-01-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed appropriately for adequate indications for the use of opioid pain medications. This was true for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #2) 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 Unnecessary Drugs policy, dated revision 5/2020, documented a resident's medication regime must be free from unnecessary drugs; in excessive dose, excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for its use, or in the presence of adverse consequences or any combination of these reasons.Resident #2 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including right above knee amputation and diabetes.Resident #2's medical record included the following physician orders for pain medication:Acetaminophen…
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 26 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-09 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and not expired. This was true for the facility. This failure created the potential for residents to receive expired medications with decreased efficacy. Findings include:The following was observed during the medication cart audits. On 1/6/26 at 10:52 AM, the 200 Hall medication cart was audited with RN #1 present. Observed the following: - one bottle of Gas Relief with an expiration date of 7/25 printed on the bottle On 1/6/26 at 10:56 AM, RN #1 stated, the bottle of Gas Relief should have been discarded and had not been. On 1/6/26 at 2:25 PM, the DON stated the expired medications should have been removed from the medication cart and had not been.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-09 · 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:On 1/5/26 at 7:40 AM, during the initial tour of the kitchen, the Dietary Supervisor stated he is not a Certified Dietary Manager or qualified Director of Food and Nutrition Services but was enrolled in a Certified Dietary Managers course.On 1/5/26 at 7:41 AM, the Assistant Dietary Supervisor stated she is not Certified Dietary Manager, or Qualified Director of Food and Nutrition services but she took the Certified Dietary Manager course in 2023. She stated she did not attend the required 3-day in person training that was required to complete the course and had to take the course over.On 1/7/26 at 2:10 PM, the Administrator stated the Dietary Supervisor and Assistant Dietary Supervisor are not qualified Directors of Food and Nutrition services but are enrolled in an…
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 · D2026-01-09 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 medical records were maintained for each resident. This was true for 2 of 17 residents (#2 and #4) whose records were reviewed for pain management. This deficient practice resulted in inaccurate documentation and created the potential for harm if inappropriate care and/or treatments were provided to the resident. Findings include: Resident #2 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including right above knee amputation and diabetes. On 1/7/26 at 10:10 AM, during record review Resident #2's November 2025 medication administration record documented Percocet Oral Tablet 10-325 Mg (Oxycodone w/Acetaminophen) had been administered by CNA #4 on 11/1/25 at 8:34 PM, 11/7/25 at 4:33 PM, and 11/29/25 at 1:10 PM. On 1/7/26 at 10:30 AM, review of the Active Employee List had CNA #4 listed as a registered nurse and an initial hire date of 7/9/13 with a termination…
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 before2026-01-09 · 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. These failures had the potential to impact all residents in the facility by placing them at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include: The facility's Infection Control Prevention and Control Program - Hand Hygiene Policy Updated 1/1/22, documented wash hands with soap and water for the following reasons: a. Before eating or after using the restroom b. When hands are visibly soiled; and c. After contact with a resident with infectious diarrhea including but not limited to infections caused by norovirus and C. difficile. The following was observed for hand hygiene: a) On 1/5/26 at 7:48 AM, observed LPN #1 serve Resident #23 his meal tray in his room. Resident #23 was not offered or encouraged to perform hand hygiene before eating. On 1/5/26 at 7:50 AM, observed LPN #1 serve Resident #8 her meal tray in her room. Resident #8 was not offered or encouraged to perform…
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 before2025-04-22 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #101) observed for dignity. This deficient practice had the potential for residents to experience embarrassment, and low feelings of self-worth. Findings include: Resident #101 was admitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a disease in which the immune system eats away at the protective covering of the nerves) and overactive bladder. On 4/22/25 at 9:30 AM, Resident #101 was observed in her wheelchair in the hallway with her urinary drainage bag without a privacy cover. On 4/22/25 at 2:06 PM, the DON was interviewed and stated the urinary drainage bag should have been covered and was not.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-10-25 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was accurate and posted daily for each shift. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility and their representatives, visitors, and others who wanted to review the facility's staffing levels. Findings include: The State Operation Manual, Appendix PP revised on 8/8/24, documented §483.35(g) Nurse Staffing Information. §483.35(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 10/24/24 at 1:30 PM, observed the Daily Staffing sheets for April 2024 through October 2024, noting 46 days were not completed accurately 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 · F2024-10-25 · 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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the 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) Food Code Section 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, TCS (time/temperature control for safety) food, date marking, states marking the date or day the original container is opened in a food establishment, with a procedure to discard the food on or before the last date or day by which the food must be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded. The facility's Kitchen Resource: Food Safety for Your Loved One policy/procedure, non-dated, documented Food or beverages that have past the manufacturer's expiration dated should be thrown away. Food and beverages items without a manufacturer's expiration date should be dated upon arrival in the facility and thrown away…
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 before2024-10-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a clean, safe, homelike environment. This was true for all 65 residents who resided in the facility whose equipment and environment were observed. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if: a) cross contamination due to equipment not being cleaned between use b) residents were embarrassed by and/or felt the disrepair in the facility was unacceptable, disrespectful, undignified, or c) residents were injured due to unsafe areas in the facility. Findings include: The facility's Housekeeping policy, revision date May 2007, documented the facility would provide a clean, comfortable, homelike, and sanitary living area. The following areas were observed: a) On 10/22/24 at 8:35 AM, observed the sit-to-stand (a device used to rise from a seated position to a standing position without using hands for assistance) base sides had a white dried substance, while the center 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 · Ecited before2024-10-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention practices were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment when staff did not offer or encourage residents hand hygiene prior to meals and follow proper handling of medications. These failures had the potential to impact all residents in the facility by placing them at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include: The following was observed: 1. On 10/21/24 at 8:00 AM, observed food tray delivery and set up on Resident #19's overbed table. CNA #1 did not encourage him to perform hand hygiene before eating. On 10/21/24 at 8:03 AM, observed food tray delivery and set up on Resident #42's overbed table. NA #1 did not encourage him to perform hand hygiene before eating. On 10/21/24 at 8:09 AM, CNA #1 stated she should have provided hand hygiene to the residents. On 10/21/24 at 8:12 AM, NA #1 stated she should have asked if the residents wanted their hands cleaned before eating their meals. On 10/24/24 at 10:21 AM, the IP stated the staff…
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 before2024-10-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure dignity of residents when staff enter their rooms without knocking and waiting for acknowledgement to enter. This was true for 2 out of 2 resident rooms observed during the morning meal tray delivery. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of embarrassment and diminished sense of self-worth. Findings include: On 10/21/24 at 8:04 AM, observed CNA #2 had not knocked or waited for resident acknowledgement prior to entering room [ROOM NUMBER] when delivering the breakfast meal. On 10/21/24 at 8:05 AM, CNA #2 stated she normally does knock but the door was open, so I did not knock on the resident's door. On 10/21/24 at 8:06 AM, observed NA #2 had not knocked or waited for resident acknowledgement prior to entering room [ROOM NUMBER] when delivering the breakfast meal. On 10/21/24 at 8:07 AM, NA #2 stated she should have knocked before entering the resident's room. On 10/25/24 at 11:20 AM, the ADON stated staff need to knock prior to entering…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-25 · 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 policy review, observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed to determine if they were safe to self-administer medications for 2 of 6 residents (#3 and #36) reviewed for self-administration of medications. This failure created the potential for adverse effects if residents self-administered medications inappropriately. Findings include: The facility's Self Administration of Medications policy dated June 2023, documented: - If a resident desires to participate in self-administration of medications, the interdisciplinary team will assess and periodically re-assess the resident based on change in the resident's status. - If the resident is a candidate for self-administration of medications, a physician's order for self-administration of medications or for specific medications to be administered (example inhalers) will be obtained. Self-administration of medications will be care planned. - Resident will be instructed regarding proper…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-25 · 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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS) had correct assessment information. This was true for 4 of 4 residents (#3, #4, #15, and #38) 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: The Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), revised 10/1/2024, documents if a PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level II determines a resident has a serious mental illness then section A1500 of the MDS should be marked yes. 1. Resident #3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Resident #3's PASRR Level II dated 4/18/24, documented she had schizophrenia. Resident #3's admission MDS dated [DATE], documented she was not currently considered by the state level II PASRR to have serious mental illness and/or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-25 · 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, policy review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours of resident's admission. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for baseline care plan. This failure created the potential for harm when the care plan failed to provide direction for care. Findings include: The facility's Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning policy, revised December 2023, documented under Procedure #1, Within 48 hours of the resident's admission, the facility will develop and implement a baseline care plan that includes instructions needed to provide effective and person-center care. The State Operation Manual, Appendix PP revised on 8/8/24, documents §483.21(a)(1) The facility must develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care. The baseline care plan must-…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-25 · 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 staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 2 of 17 resident's (#3 and #21) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed resident at risk of adverse outcomes if care and services were not provided due to care plans not being revised as resident's needs changed. Findings include: The facility's Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning Policy, revision date December 2023, documented the resident's comprehensive plan of care will be reviewed and/or revised by the IDT after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments. 1. Resident #3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a disease in which the immune system eats away at the protective covering of nerves resulting in nerve damage) and nicotine dependence. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-25 · 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 policy review, record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accidents. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #9) reviewed for accidents. This failure had the potential to cause residents significant injuries. Findings include: The facility's Smoking Policy, undated, documented: - An independent smoker is a smoker who has been evaluated by the IDT team using the smoking assessment form and determined to be safe to smoke independently. - An assisted smoker is a smoker who has been evaluated by the IDT team using the smoking assessment form and determined to require assistance with smoking privileges. Current residents who have been assessed as assisted smokers will be supervised during designated times and smoking material will be kept in the designated area. Resident #9 was admitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including anxiety disorder, depression, and malnutrition. Resident #9's care plan dated 7/22/24, documented he required supervised…
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 before2024-10-25 · 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, observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory services as ordered by the physician. This was true for 3 of 15 residents (#14, #28, and #52) whose records were reviewed for respiratory services. This failure created the potential for residents to experience increased fatigue and low oxygen levels. Findings include: 1. Resident #14 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (occurs when there is too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood) and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (occurs when the body doesn't have enough oxygen in the tissues). On 10/21/24 at 10:16 AM, observed Resident #14 outside her room without her oxygen cannula on, with staff present and talking to her. Resident #14's physician's order dated 7/2/24, documented oxygen at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula continuously and check liter flow four…
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 before2024-10-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were monitored appropriately for medication, therapeutic range, and toxicity levels. This was true for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #49) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure created the potential for residents to experience adverse reactions due to the lack of appropriate monitoring. Findings include: Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including acute osteomyelitis (a bone infection that occurs when an infection spreads to the bones, usually within two weeks of the onset of disease) and cerebral palsy (a group of neurological disorders that affect a person's ability to move, balance, and maintain posture). Resident #49's physician's order dated 3/7/24, documented Levetiracetam Oral Tablet 1000 MG, give 1000 MG three times a day for Seizure Disorder. On 10/25/24 at 8:46 AM, the ADON and Clinical Resource nurse stated they were going to call the Physician and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-25 · 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 labeled, dated, and stored appropriately. This was true for 1 of 1 medication storage rooms inspected, 2 of 46 residents (#3 and #36) resident rooms inspected, and 1 of 2 treatment carts observed. This failure created the potential for residents to receive expired medications with decreased efficacy, the potential for adverse effects if residents self-administered medications inappropriately, and the potential for residents to obtain prescribed wound care supplies used for other residents and presented the risk for cross-contamination of wound care products stored in the treatment cart. Findings include: The CDC guidelines for Preventing Unsafe Injection Practices, dated 3/26/24, documented once a multi-dose vial is opened (e.g., needle-punctured) the vial should be dated and discarded within 28 days unless the manufacturer states another date for that opened vial.…
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 before2024-10-25 · 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 observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services, including resident assessments, individual plans of care, and the number, acuity, and diagnoses of the facility's resident population. These deficiencies had the potential to affect all residents requiring medical nutrition therapy, nutritional assessments, and appropriate supplementation and dietary interventions. Findings include: The State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, revised 8/8/24, documented, if a qualified dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional is not employed full-time, the facility must designate a person to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. The director of food and nutrition services must at a minimum meet one of the following qualifications: - A certified dietary manager. - A certified food service manager, or - Has similar national certification for food service management and safety from a national…
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 · D2023-10-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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, review of the State Survey Agency's Long-Term Care Reporting Portal, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of potential abuse to the State Survey Agency within 24 hours. This affected 1 of 15 residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if allegations were not acted upon in a timely manner and the alleged abuse continued. Findings include: The facility's policy, Abuse: Prevention of and Prohibition Against, dated 4/2019, stated: Allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, or exploitation will be reported outside the Facility and to the appropriate State or Federal agencies in the applicable timeframes, as per this policy and applicable regulations. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including left sided hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following a stroke,…
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 · D2023-10-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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, review of the State Survey Agency's Long-Term Care Reporting Portal, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure allegations of potential abuse were thoroughly investigated. This was true for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for abuse. This failure created the potential for residents to be subjected to ongoing abuse without detection and protective measures implemented by the facility. Findings include: The facility's policy, Abuse: Prevention of and Prohibition Against, dated 4/2019, stated: After receiving the allegation, and during and after the investigation, the administrator will ensure that all residents are protected from physical and psychosocial harm. The facility's policy stated the investigation will, at a minimum, include an interview with the person reporting the incident, an interview with the resident, interviews with witnesses to the incident, including the alleged perpetrator (as…
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 before2023-10-05 · 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 observation, record review, policy review, facility I&A review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were implemented following a fall and that the care plan interventions were put into place, reviewed, and updated and carried out consistently. This was true for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #2) whose records were reviewed. This had the potential for harm if the resident sustained an injury from a fall. The facility's policy Fall Management, revised 1/2022, stated the following: - Each resident will have an appropriate assessment and interventions to prevent falls and minimize complications should a fall occur. - Care plan interventions would address the risk factors for the resident and be individualized. - After a fall, a fall risk evaluation will be completed. - Review of the fall will include investigation to include probable causes and will be reviewed by the IDT. - The resident's care plan will be updated. This policy was not followed.…
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 · D2020-02-07 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observation, record review, policy review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' call lights were within reach for 1 of 12 (Resident #13) residents reviewed for call lights. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm if the resident could not request assistance when needed or experienced an adverse medical event requiring prompt staff attention. Findings include: The facility's Call Light policy, dated 5/2007, directed staff to place the call device within the resident's reach before leaving the room. Resident #13 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a potentially disabling disease of the brain and spinal cord) and lack of coordination. Resident #13's 11/18/19 quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment documented he required two-person assistance for transfers. Resident #13's care plan, dated 7/25/19, directed staff to keep his call light within reach. On 2/4/20 at 8:49 AM, Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-07 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' were assessed for the safe use of enabling devices. This was true for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #14) whose assessments were reviewed. This deficient practice placed Resident #14 at risk of injury if the transfer pole in his bedroom was assessed and found to be unsafe for his use. Findings include: The facility's Enabling Device Assessment policy, dated 8/2007, documented assessments of enabling devices were to be completed prior to their use. This policy was not followed. Resident #14 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including unsteadiness on feet and psychomotor deficit (a slowing-down of thought and a reduction of physical movements). Resident #14's care plan, dated 1/2/20, documented he used a transfer pole during transfers. Resident #14's physician's order, dated 1/2/20, documented an order for a transfer pole. Resident #14's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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, record review, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders for as needed psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days unless the physician documented rationale for the continued use of the medication and specified a duration for its use. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #26) who were reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if residents experienced adverse effects from unnecessary psychotropic medications. Findings include: The facility's policy for Psychotropic Drug Use, dated 8/2017, stated as needed orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days. If the prescribing practitioner believed it was appropriate to extend beyond 14 days, the practitioner was to document the rationale and indicate a duration for the use of the as needed medication in the resident's medical record. This policy was not followed. Resident #26 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses which included…
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.
- No harm found · Ccited before2020-02-07 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was posted daily, at the beginning of each shift, and was complete. This failed practice had the potential to affect the 36 residents residing in the facility and their representatives, visitors, and others who wanted to review the facility's staffing levels. Findings include: The facility's Nurse Staff Posting policy, dated 5/2007, documented the facility posted the number of staff and hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for residents' care. This policy was not followed. On 2/3/20 at 3:23 PM, the daily nurse staffing information was observed in the hallway near the nurses' station. The posted information was for the day, evening and night shift, and documented the following: * Day Shift: CNAs - 5, LPNs - 1, and RNs - 1 * Evening Shift: CNAs - 5, LPNs - 1, and RNs - 1 * Night Shift: CNAs - 2 and LPNs - 1 * The facility's census was 36 On 2/4/20 at 8:46 AM, the daily nurse staffing information 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.
“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
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 | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/01/2019 |
| MUNNS, TYSON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/23/2025 |
| PACKER, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| FARNSWORTH, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2019 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| SECOND WEST HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| STANDARD BEARER HEALTHCARE OP, LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
About 83% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $617K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% 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 135105. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-09, 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.