Hurricane Health and Rehabilitation
416 North State Street, Hurricane, UT 84737 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (435) 635-9833 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $46,602 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-25)
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 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 | 7.1% | 11.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 3.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.9% | 1.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 13.5% | 16.5% | 6.5% | better 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 | 2.5% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 29.2% | 15.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.5% | 25.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 3.9% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.5% | 21.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.4% | 14.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 0.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 91.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.0% | 16.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 32.8% | 11.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.92 | 1.25 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.57 | 1.43 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
63.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 75 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 29 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 0.89 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 96% 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 | 63.2%CMS range 53.5–74.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.9%CMS range 5.6–12.9 | 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 | 72.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 41.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 44.8% | 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 | 93.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.7% | 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 | 8.1%CMS range 4.6–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 60 beds and averages 53.6 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.23 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.00 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.39 to 0.84 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-09-25 · 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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug was defined as any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indication for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences. Specifically, for 4 out of 25 sampled residents, blood pressure medications were administered outside of a physician's ordered parameters and one resident required medical intervention. Resident identifiers: 7, 8, 38, and 43. 1. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertensive chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and bladder cancer. Resident 7's medical record was reviewed on 9/22/25 through 9/25/25. On 5/15/25, Lisinopril oral tablet was ordered for hypertension, with the following parameters: Hold if BP [blood pressure] is below 120/80. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that the administration time for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2025-09-25 · tag F0840 — isolatedEmploy or obtain outside professional resources to provide services in the nursing home when the facility does not employ a qualified professional to furnish a required service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility did not arrange services with an outside agency. Specifically, for 1 out of 25 sampled residents, residents had physician's orders to follow up with a specialist and the facility staff did not put the order in for 2 months, which delayed the resident seeing the specialist for over 3 months.Findings included: Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included sequelae of cerebral infarction, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, and muscle weakness.Resident 18's medical record was reviewed between 9/22/25 and 9/25/25.Hospital discharge documents dated 4/4/25 indicated resident 18 had a discharge diagnosis of urinary retention and acute kidney injury. Discharge Orders included, Urinary retention: According to nephrology, patient should be discharged with Foley catheter and follow-up with urology as an outpatient; and Follow-up: [Physician's name…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-07-30 · 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 interview and record review, it was determined that for 1 of 7 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure each resident received the supervision and assistance devices necessary to prevent an accident. Specifically, Resident 3 was not properly secured when transported in a facility vehicle and the resident subsequently slid out of their wheelchair and sustained a femur fracture. Resident Identifier: 3. In response to the incident involving Resident 3, the facility identified the quality deficiency and developed a corrective action plan. At the time of the complaint survey, it was determined the facility had implemented corrective measures and met the requirements of F689. Due to the facility's corrective measures, the noncompliance was determined to be past-noncompliance. The facility's corrective action plan, which was developed and implemented by 4/23/24, included the following measures: a. On 4/22/24, the date of the incident involving Resident 3, the facility entered into an agreement with 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 · Ecited before2025-09-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 and interview, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, a freezer in the outdoor storage room contained food items open to air, areas in the kitchen were not clean, food items in the reach in refrigerator were not labeled, and dead bugs were found in the outdoor dry storage room. Findings included:On 9/22/25 at 1:55 PM, an initial walk-through of the kitchen was conducted. In the outdoor storage room, a lift-top freezer contained a torn plastic bag with frozen pizza crusts that was open to air, and a large plastic bag containing what appeared to be frozen cookie dough was open to air, and appeared to have freezer burn. There was no thermometer in the freezer. In the kitchen the stove was not clean; there were crumbs, a dipping sauce packet and cheese wrapper under the stove. The ice machine was not clean with rust or water deposits above the ice. In the dry storage room, 2 bulk bins with what appeared to be flour and sugar inside, were not labeled or dated. In…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-25 · 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 interview and observation, for 1 of 25 sampled residents, the facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. Specifically, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed standing next to a resident in bed while providing feeding assistance . Resident identifier: 48. Findings included:Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis, type 2 diabetes, dysphagia, congestive heart failure, and chronic pain.An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident 48 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. The assessment also revealed that resident 48 had upper extremity impairment on one side, and was dependent on staff for eating, oral hygiene, toileting, and bathing.On 9/24/25 at 10:50 AM,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-25 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 25 sampled residents, that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was continent of bladder on admission received services and assistance to maintain continence unless his or her clinical condition was or became such that continence was not possible to maintain; and a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to restore continence to the extent possible. Specifically, one resident who was assessed to be continent or a good candidate for bladder retraining was not provided services. Resident identifier: 59. Findings included:On 9/23/25 at 10:37 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 59. Resident 59 stated she wore a brief and was unsure why she needed to wear one because she can tell when she needed to use the bathroom. Resident 59 stated she needed assistance from staff to go to the bathroom. Resident 59 stated she did not need to wear briefs before coming to the facility and that staff just…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-25 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, for 1 of 25 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, a resident receiving dialysis was not having his pre-dialysis vital signs information documented before leaving for dialysis as was required in the facilities' dialysis communication policy. Resident identifier: 30.Findings included: Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis, atrial fibrillation, and muscle wasting and atrophy.On 9/23/25 at 11:48 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 30 who stated he was taken to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays by the facility transportation van at 10:00 AM.Resident 30's medical records were reviewed between 9/23/25 and 9/25/25.A review of resident 30's care plan dated 11/2/21 revealed a Focus area, Needs hemodialysis r/t…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-25 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, for 1 of 25 sample residents, the facility did not ensure that the monthly drug regimen recommendations by a licensed pharmacist were implemented in a timely manner. Specifically, a recommendation made by the pharmacist to separate administration of a medication and a supplement due to interaction was not acknowledged by the physician or implemented. Resident identifier: 3. Findings included:Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ataxia, repeated falls, chronic kidney disease, encephalopathy, and memory deficit following nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Resident 3's medical record was reviewed between 9/22/25 and 9/25/25.No documentation of the monthly pharmacy reviews were found in the progress notes. There was no documentation of the pharmacy reviews found in the resident's miscellaneous documents.The facility 2025 monthly pharmacy review binder was reviewed. In March 2025, a pharmacy recommendation for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-19 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 6 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that residents were free from any significant medication errors. Specifically, a resident 's Clozapine medication was omitted due to unavailability from the pharmacy. Resident identifier 5. Findings included: Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hydrocephalus, repeated falls, schizophrenia, dysphagia, flaccid neuropathic bladder, need for assistance with personal care, and muscle weakness. Resident 5's medical records were reviewed on 3/19/2024. On 3/19/23 at 10:43 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 5. Resident 5 stated that he had missed his psychiatric medication for 3 days because it was hard to get. Resident 5 stated they had to check his blood before they could get the medication. Resident 5 stated he had not slept for the 3 days when he did not get his medication. Resident 5 stated this had happened a few times and he believed it was his…
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 before2023-10-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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, interview, and record review, it was determined for 1 of 26 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident's environment remained free of accident hazards. Specifically, the facility did not provide adequate locks to prevent residents access to harmful chemicals. Resident identifier: 11. Findings include: Resident 11 was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmit on 1/24/22 with diagnoses which included vascular dementia with agitation, bipolar disorder, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side, altered mental status, and dysphagia. Resident 11's medical record was reviewed 10/16/23 through 10/26/23. An incident progress note dated 10/10/23 at 6:38 AM, Nurse was by the laundry room when she heard someone yelling for help. When she checked inside the laundry room she found the patient sitting on the floor next to her wheelchair with a pile of socks on h ER [sic] lap. Resident stated that she did not know…
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 before2023-10-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 interview and observation, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, reusable ice packs were located in resident freezers, garbage cans in the kitchen were soiled, and kitchen cabinets were in disrepair. Findings include: 1. On 10/18/23 at 7:00 PM, an observation was made of the facility kitchen. The following was identified: a. There were 4 kitchen cabinets located next to the dishroom. The cabinets had been painted white, but were visibly soiled with a black grime on the outside, especially around the handles. Both the inside and outside surfaces of the cabinets were sticky to the touch. The shelves inside the cabinets were observed to be soiled with various substances. In addition, the cabinet doors were in a state of disrepair that did not allow the doors to completely cover the shelves when the doors were closed. b. There was a metal garbage can near the facility oven. The lid of the garbage can was connected to the garbage can and was open. The lid of the garbage can…
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 · D2023-10-18 · 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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 2 of 26 sample residents had an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment. Resident identifiers: 29 and 34. Findings include: 1. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included rheumatoid arthritis, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, diabetes mellitus, anemia, and dementia. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 10/16/23. Resident 29's quarterly MDS assessment completed on 6/14/23 did not include a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score, even though the assessment indicated that the BIMS should be completed. Resident 29's annual MDS assessment completed on 9/14/23 did not include a BIMS score. 2. Resident 34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, and altered mental status. Resident 34's medical record was reviewed on 10/16/23. Resident 34's initial MDS assessment completed on 5/17/23 did not include a BIMS score.…
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 before2023-10-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 26 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that a resident who was incontinent of bladder received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI) and to restore continence to the extent possible. Specifically, a resident with a urinary catheter had a delay in treatment for a UTI. Resident Identifier: 39 Findings include: Resident 39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, altered mental status, acute kidney failure, stage 3 chronic kidney disease, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, adult failure to thrive, and anxiety disorder. Resident 39's medical record was reviewed on 10/17/23. On 10/9/23 at 12:47 PM, a nurse note documented, Resident has had an increase in confusion and restlessness. His urine is also cloudy with foul odor. Received orders to collect UA [urinalysis]. UA was collected and sent. A physician order with an start date of 10/9/23 and end…
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 · E2022-09-21 · 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 interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not provide each resident with a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Specifically, there were walls in resident room with scratched drywall, chipped paint, a wall with drywall missing and baseboard pulling away from the wall. Findings include: 1. On 9/19/22 at 2:26 PM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. There were large scrapes on the wall with missing paint behind the bed. The scraps were visible from the hallway. 2. On 9/19/22 at 3:00 PM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. room [ROOM NUMBER] had a chunk of drywall missing toward the floor outside the bathroom. The trim was pulling away from the wall. 3. On 9/21/22 at 8:30 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. room [ROOM NUMBER] had large scrapes in the drywall with missing paint behind the bed. The scrapes were visible from the hallway. 4. On 9/21/22 at 9:00 AM, an observation was made of the facility with the Administrator. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-09-21 · tag F0888 — patternEnsure staff are vaccinated for COVID-19
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 5 of 5 contracted staff members, that the facility did not ensure that all staff including contracted staff members were fully vaccinated for COVID-19, except for those staff who had been granted exemptions to the vaccination. Specifically, contracted staff members vaccination status were unknown. Staff member identifiers: Contracted Staff Member (CSM) 1, CSM 2, CSM 3, CSM 4 and CMS 5. Findings include: On 9/19/22 at 1:30 PM, an initial observation of the facility was conducted. There were contractor staff members observed to be working with wires and construction. There were contractors outside the dining room, in resident hallways and at the nurses station. On 9/20/22 at 8:34 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the facility did not have contracted employees. On 9/20/22 at approximately 9:30 AM, an observation was made of (CSM) 1. CSM 1 was observed to be placing a gown and gloves on outside…
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 · D2022-09-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 2 of 19 sampled residents, that the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, observations were made during wound care of cross contamination during treatment application, lack of hand hygiene, and not changing soiled gloves. Additionally, observations were made of staff assisting a resident without the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) needed for the resident who was on contact/droplet precautions. Resident identifiers: 27 and 88. Findings included: 1. Resident 27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included sepsis, quadriplegia, pyelonephritis, acute kidney failure, pressure ulcer stage 2 of right and left ankle, hypertension, atrial flutter, anoxic brain damage, idiopathic…
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
$46,602 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $38,584 — penalty dated 2025-09-25
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-07-30
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 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 | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| COSGRAVE, CORY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/12/2023 |
| JENKINS, TRACY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2011 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/01/2011 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/01/2011 |
| MOSS, TYLER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/01/2016 |
| ZION HEALTHCARE, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2016 |
| CARETRUST GP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2016 |
| CARETRUST REIT INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2016 |
| CTR PARTNERSHIP LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2016 |
| DIXIE HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2016 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2011 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 11 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.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $680K 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 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 UT
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 Utah 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 465101. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-25, 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.