George E. Wahlen Ogden Veterans Home
1102 North 1200 West, Ogden, UT 84404 · Government - State · 120 certified beds · (801) 334-4300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (27% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0609) — most recent Feb 2025
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $12,363 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-28)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 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 | 14.7% | 11.3% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 3.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 1.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 15.5% | 16.5% | 6.5% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.4% | 2.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.3% | 15.1% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 52.6% | 25.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 3.9% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.9% | 21.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.5% | 14.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 13.3% | 0.9% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 91.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 12.4% | 16.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.3% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.49 | 1.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.76 | 1.43 | 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.
43.6% 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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 38.1% 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 21 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 51% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 43.6%CMS range 31.8–57.0 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 5.7–15.8 | 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 | 38.1% | 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 | 33.3% | 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 | 42.9% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 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 120 beds and averages 112.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 8 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 5.05 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.50 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.02 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.46 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.29 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.71 to 0.98 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% is below 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-02-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 9 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure each resident was free from abuse. Specifically, a resident's husband tried to shove a spoon with medication into another resident's mouth. In another incident the same resident's husband shoved her and removed her clothing to change her clothes. There were no interventions to prevent the resident from further abuse. The findings for resident 1 were determined to have resulted in immediate jeopardy. Resident identifiers: 1 and 2. Findings included: NOTICE On 2/26/25 at 4:30 PM, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified when the facility failed to implement Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended practices to prevent various forms of abuse. This notice was given verbally and in writing to the facility Administrator (ADM), and the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding resident 1. On 2/27/25, the facility ADM provided the following written abatement plan for the removal…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-02-28 · 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 observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 9 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency. Specifically, it was not reported to the State Survey Agency when a resident's husband tried to shove a spoon with medication into her mouth. The findings for resident 1 were determined to have resulted in immediate jeopardy. Resident identifiers: 1 and 2. Findings included: NOTICE On 2/26/25 at 4:30 PM, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified when the facility failed to implement Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended practices to prevent various forms of abuse. This notice was given verbally and in writing to the facility Administrator (ADM), and the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding resident 1. The facility ADM provided the following written abatement plan for the removal of the Immediate Jeopardy effective on 2/27/25 at 11:59 PM. Removal Plan for Immediate Jeopardy…
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 · G2024-08-07 · 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, interview and record review, for 2 of 38 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the resident's choice. Specifically, a resident was administered medications by the nurse after he was unable to put them in his own mouth and was experiencing confusion, having difficulty staying awake, had gurgling sounds when breathing, and difficulty keeping oxygen saturation above 90 percent. No monitoring was documented for his change in condition. The resident was discharged to the hospital with an overdose. In addition, a resident was experiencing low oxygen levels in the evening and was not monitored throughout the night to ensure it was above 90 percent after the resident was provided increased oxygen. Resident identifiers: 67 and 77. Findings include: 1. Resident 67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that…
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 · D2025-02-28 · 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, interview or record review it was determined, for 2 of 9 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered plan, the residents' goals and preferences. Specifically, residents on oxygen were using empty oxygen tanks. Resident identifier: 7 and 8. Findings Included: 1. Resident 7 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic systolic congestive heart failure. On 2/25/25 at 1:32 PM, an observation was made of resident 7's portable oxygen tank while in use. The oxygen tank indicator was observed in the red refill area. Resident 7's medical records were reviewed on 2/25/25. A care plan focus area initiated 9/9/24 documented resident 7 had altered respiratory status and required supplemental oxygen to maintain…
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 · D2024-08-07 · 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, for 1 of 38 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure each resident's environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, a resident rolled out of a high bed and hit his head on a feeding tube pump. In addition, a family member noticed the change in condition and transported the resident to the hospital. Resident identifier: 119. Findings include: Resident 119 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included metabolic encephalopathy, Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia, acute kidney failure, dysphagia, muscle weakness, muscle wasting and atrophy, and traumatic subdural hemorrhage without loss of consciousness. Resident 119's medical record was reviewed 7/29/24 through 8/7/24. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that resident 119 had short and long term memory problems.…
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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management 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 it was determined, for 2 of 38 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences. Specifically, a resident was unable to provide verbal pain scores. The resident sustained a fall and an x-ray was not obtained for 15 days with revealed the resident sustained an L2 fracture. In addition, another resident had pain medication that was documented as ineffective and there was no follow-up. Resident identifiers: 77 and 78. Findings include: 1. Resident 78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction due to occlusion or stenosis of small artery, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, hypertension, dementia, stable burst fracture of second lumbar vertebra, and spinal stenosis. On…
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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility did not have the nurse staffing information posted. The facility must post the following information on a daily basis: The facility name, the current date, the total number and actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Certified Nurses Aides, and the resident census. The facility must post the nurse staffing data on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift and maintain the posted daily nurse staffing data for a minimum of 18 months. Additionally, the information must be displayed in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. Findings include: On 7/29/24 at 8:05 AM, an observation was made of the nursing staff posting which was located inside the facility entry area across from the reception desk. There were 2 days of postings observed: One of the postings was dated 7/14/24, the other was dated 7/15/24, with the 5 being difficult to read legibly. On 8/7/24 at 8:15 AM, 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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the medication error rates was not 5 percent or greater. Observations of 35 opportunities revealed 2 medication errors which resulted in a 5.71 percent medication error rate. Specifically, a resident was administered thyroid medication not on an empty stomach and an apical pulse was not obtained prior to administering Digoxin. Resident identifier: 24. Findings included: On 7/31/24 at approximately 8:25 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 24. Resident 24 was being administered his morning medication by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2. Resident 24 stated that he had just finished breakfast and it was his favorite, biscuits and gravy. LPN 2 was observed to administer all morning medications to the resident 24 which included Digoxin tablet 125 micrograms (mcg) by mouth one time a day for atrial fibrillation and Levothyroxine tablet 75 mcg by mouth one time a day for hypothyroidism. Resident 24's physician's orders were reviewed and revealed no supplemental information 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 · D2024-08-07 · 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 2 of 38 sampled resident, that the facility did not ensure each resident was free of any significant medication errors. Specifically a resident was administered pain medication and anti-anxiety medications not according to physician's orders. In addition, another resident had a blood thinner held longer than 7 days. Resident identifiers: 50 and 119. Findings include: 1. Resident 50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety disorder, chronic kidney disease, major depressive disorder and osseous stenosis ofneural canal ofcervical region. Resident 50's medical record was reviewed 7/29/24 through 8/7/24. Resident 50's physician's orders revealed the following orders: a. On 5/23/24 Methadone HCl (hydrochloride) Oral Tablet 10 MG (milligrams) (Methadone HCl). Give 30 mg by mouth two times a day related to vertebrogenic low back pain; other chronic pain; Watch…
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 · D2024-08-07 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with accepted professional principles, under proper temperature controls and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable. Specifically, a medication cart was left unlocked and unattended. In addition, medication was available for use past the expiration date. Resident identifiers: 60. Findings include: 1. On 7/31/24 at 7:36 AM, an observation was made of the 200 hallway. Registered Nurse (RN) 6 was observed with a medication cart. RN 6 was observed to unlock her medication cart and walk away from the cart leaving it unattended. RN 6 was interviewed and stated she could not believe she left the cart unlocked and unattended. 2. On 7/31/24 at 9:19 AM, an observation was made of the 200 hallway medication cart. There was a Basaglar kwikpen with an open date of 6/29/24 that was available for use and was labeled for resident 60. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 was interviewed and stated 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 · D2024-08-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, the facility did not employ a clinically qualified full-time dietitian or another clinically qualified nutrition professional to serve as the director of nutrition services. Specifically, the facility did not employ a full time Registered Dietitian (RD) and the Dietary Manager (DM) did not meet the requirements to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. Findings include: On 7/29/24 at 9:14 AM, an interview was conducted with the DM who stated she was in the middle of getting her certification to serve as the DM. The DM stated she had been doing the job as a DM for 10 years, and had been employed at the facility for 2 years. The DM stated another full time kitchen employee ([NAME]) had completed the certification for DM, but was not working in that role. On 8/7/24 at 11:04 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DM who stated it was her understanding that having 2 years of experience as the DM met the requirement to serve as the DM. The DM stated she was taking 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 · D2024-08-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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, it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, food items in the walk-in freezer and walk-in refrigerator were open to air. Findings include: On 7/29/24 at 9:14 AM, an initial kitchen tour was conducted. In the walk-in freezer a box of peanut butter cookie dough was open to air, a box with egg patties was open to air, a box containing corn on the cob was open to air, a box containing breaded chicken was open to air, and a box containing corn dogs was open to air. On 8/7/24 at 11:04 AM, a follow-up kitchen tour was conducted. In the walk-in refrigerator, a bag of parmesan cheese was open to air. In the walk-in freezer a box of peanut butter cookie dough was open to air, a box with sausage links was open to air, a box with frozen cut corn was open to air, a box with frozen peas was open to air, a box with chicken fried beef patties was open to air, and a box containing corn dogs was open to air. On 8/7/24 at 11:18 AM, an interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$12,363 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,363 — penalty dated 2025-02-28
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 AVALON HEALTH CARE — 16 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVALON VA MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/31/2019 |
| AVALON VETERANS SERVICES, L.L.C. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/18/2018 |
| DANGERFIELD, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/05/2007 |
| KIRTON, BYRON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/27/2024 |
| KIRTON, HYRUM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/29/2022 |
| KIRTON, SPENCER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/27/2024 |
| WOLTIL, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/23/2012 |
| BORISEVICH, MARIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/08/2024 |
| HASH, ALAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2017 |
| SMITH, NICOLE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| AVALON HEALTH CARE INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/09/2009 |
| AVALON HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/03/2010 |
| STATE OF UTAH | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/09/2009 |
| ASTON, ANDREA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2013 |
| BIRD, JILL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/15/2025 |
| MOHR, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/04/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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.
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 465172. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-07, 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.