Heritage Park Healthcare and Rehabilitation
2700 West 5600 South, Roy, UT 84067 · For profit - Partnership · 176 certified beds · (801) 825-9731 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (27) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $36,645 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-02)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits 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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.6% | 11.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.5% | 3.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.8% | 1.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.5% | 16.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.8% | 2.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.0% | 15.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 52.1% | 25.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.4% | 3.9% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.7% | 21.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.2% | 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 | 91.7% | 91.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 10.1% | 16.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.7% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.27 | 1.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.02 | 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.
48.2% 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 91 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.3% 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 60 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 0.64 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 90% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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 | 48.2%CMS range 39.8–60.1 | 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 | 8.9%CMS range 6.2–13.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 63.3% | 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 | 50.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 55.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.7% | 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 | 87.2% | 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 | 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 | 6.7% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 4.2–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 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 176 beds and averages 115.2 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 61 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.84 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.90 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.29 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 3.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.03 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.04 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% 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.
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.
27 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-07-02 · 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 2. A. Resident 85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, and unspecified dementia of unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Resident 85's medical record was reviewed from 6/24/24 through 7/2/24. On 4/26/24, resident 85's annual MDS Assessment documented that a BIMS score was not conducted due to resident 85 being rarely or never understood. Resident 85's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 3/17/24 at 9:00 AM , the nurse note documented, [Resident 85] was sitting next to another resident [Resident 167] this morning at breakfast. [Resident 167] placed his hands down [Resident 85's] blouse and rubbed her breasts. [Resident 85] was agitated and anxious, once the situation subsided and [Resident 167] was moved, [Resident 85's] demeanor was better and she ate her breakfast. Checked on [Resident 85] every hour since incident and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-07-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible; and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, for 2 out of 50 sampled residents, a resident sustained a burn after spilling coffee on himself and a resident eloped from the facility. Resident identifiers: 21 and 166. Findings included: 1. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and mood disorder. Resident 21's medical record was reviewed from 6/24/24 through 7/2/24. On 2/26/24, resident 21's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1 out of 15, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment. The MDS assessment also documented that resident 21 required partial to moderate…
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 before2022-11-15 · 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, the facility did not ensure that the resident's environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible. Specifically, for 2 out of 36 sampled residents, a resident sustained a scrotal laceration during a transfer with a mechanical lift. The deficient practice identified was found to have occurred at a harm level. Additionally, a resident sustained a fall during a one person assistance with a slideboard transfer. Resident identifiers: 73 and 77. Findings included: 1. Resident 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, quadriplegia Cervical (C) 5 through C7 incomplete, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dysphagia, reduced mobility, anemia, mood disorder with depressive features, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, metabolic encephalopathy, hypotension, chronic respiratory failure, pressure ulcer of right buttocks stage 4, pressure ulcer of back, buttocks and hip stage 4, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-02 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Specifically, for 3 out of 50 sampled residents, the facility did not report an allegation of mental/verbal abuse until seven days after the incident occurred, the facility did not report an allegation of sexual abuse until five days after the incident occurred, and the facility did not report an additional allegation of sexual abuse to Adult Protective Services (APS) or the police within two hours of the allegation being made. Resident Identifiers: 21, 63, 85, and 167. Findings Included: 1. Resident 85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral…
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 · E2024-07-02 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, for 5 out of 50 sampled residents, residents complained about the food being served cold, the resident council minutes had concerns documented regarding food being served cold, and the food items on the test tray were cold. Resident identifiers: 25, 37, 72, 268, and 274. Findings included: 1. On 6/24/24 at 10:17 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 37. Resident 37 stated that the food was not always as warm as it should be. Resident 37 stated the staff would start passing meal in the dining room and then at the end of the hall. Resident 37 stated that she was almost the last to get her meal but she understood. 2. On 6/24/24 at 10:32 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 274. Resident 274 stated the food was cold when it was served and the food was not that good. 3. On 6/24/24 at 12:11 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 25. Resident 25 stated that sometimes the food was cold by the time it…
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 · E2024-07-02 · 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 distribute and serve food in accordance with the professional standards of food service safety. Specifically, food items in the dry storage room, walk in refrigerator and walk in freezer were open to air, the kitchen was not clean, and there were broken tiles in the kitchen. Findings included: On 6/24/24 at 8:26 AM, an initial walkthrough of the kitchen was conducted. In the dry storage room, bulk storage bins were open to air and were not labeled. These included oats, chocolate powder, sugar, flour, cake mix, and potato chips. In the walk-in refrigerator, a box containing bacon was open to air. In the walk-in freezer, a box containing biscuit dough and a box of beef patties were open to air. The floor under and behind the grill was dirty and along the base of the wall, with what appeared to be food pieces under the grill. A tile near the ice cream freezer had a hole in it with what appeared to be dirt and dried food particles in it. On 6/27/24 at 12:40 PM, an observation was conducted of the kitchen. Tiles between two ovens…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-02 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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, the facility did not exercise reasonable care for the protection of the resident's property from loss or theft. Specifically, for 1 out of 50 sampled residents, a resident who was missing a personal item did not have the missing item located or replaced in a timely manner. Resident identifier: 65. Findings included: Resident 65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, malignant neoplasm of larynx, emphysema, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, tracheostomy status, and acquired absence of larynx. On 6/24/24 at 3:03 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 65. Resident 65 stated that he had an issue with the housekeeping staff coming into his room and stuff would go missing. Resident 65 stated that he had a jacket that went missing and other items but resident 65…
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 · D2024-07-02 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 electronically transmit encoded, accurate, and complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) data to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) system within 14 days of completing a resident's assessment. Specifically, for 1 out of 50 sampled residents, the facility did not transmit a resident's completed discharge MDS assessment to CMS. Resident Identifier: 95. Findings Included: Resident 95 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident 95's medical record was reviewed from 6/24/24 through 7/2/24. A Death in Facility MDS assessment was completed on 3/8/24. Question A0140 of the assessment had the response, Unit is neither Medicare nor Medicaid certified and MDS data is not required by the State. The assessment submission…
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 · D2024-07-02 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, 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 preferences. Specifically, for 1 out of 50 sampled residents, a resident was observed to complain about pain and pain medications were not available. Resident identifier: 9. Findings included: Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paraplegia, cirrhosis of liver, hepatic encephalopathy, psychosis, and hypertension. On 6/24/24 at 1:58 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 9. Resident 9 stated that he was in pain and that he did not want to complete the interview because he was in a lot of pain. Resident 9 was observed to have rested his head in the palm of his hand. Resident 9 was observed to have facial grimacing. On 6/27/24 at 8:11 AM, an observation was conducted of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-02 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services which included procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident. Specifically, for 2 out of 50 sampled residents, a resident did not have Cyclobenzaprine available and another resident did not have Seroquel available for administration. Resident identifiers: 9 and 111. Findings included: 1. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paraplegia, cirrhosis of liver, hepatic encephalopathy, psychosis, and hypertension. On 6/24/24 at 1:58 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 9. Resident 9 stated that he was in pain and that he did not want to complete the interview because he was in a lot of pain. Resident 9 was observed to have rested his head in the palm of his hand. Resident 9 was observed to have facial grimacing. On 6/27/24 at 8:11 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 · Dcited before2024-07-02 · 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 that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug is any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indications for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any combinations of the reasons above. Specifically, for 2 out of 50 sampled residents, resident's receiving blood pressure support medication for hypotension did not have the medication held when the systolic blood pressure (SBP) was outside of the physician's ordered parameters. In addition, a resident receiving insulin did not have the medication held when the blood sugar was below the physician's ordered parameters. Resident identifiers: 35 and 65. Findings included: 1. Resident 35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, cerebral…
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 · D2024-07-02 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
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 provide or obtain timely laboratory services to meet the needs of the residents. Specifically, for 1 out of 50 sampled residents, a Depakote lab was not obtained or followed-up on for 10 days and a Complete Blood Count (CBC) was not obtained or followed-up on for seven days. Resident identifier: 55. Findings included: Resident 55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included a fracture of the right femur, hypertension, hypothyroidism, depression, hyperlipidemia, dementia, pain right leg, dysphagia, right artificial hip joint, cognitive communication deficit, benign prostatic hyperplasia, thrombocytosis, and anemia. Resident 55's medical record was reviewed from 6/24/24 through 7/2/24. On 5/6/24, resident 55's physician ordered a Depakote level. On 5/8/24, resident 55's physician ordered a CBC. Review of the laboratory results revealed the following: a. On 5/6/24, the lab report documented, A plasma…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, 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, for 5 out of 50 sampled residents, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assisted multiple residents with dining and hand hygiene was not performed when environmental surfaces and resident objects were touched. Resident identifiers: 21, 24, 40, 63, and 84. Findings included: On 6/26/24, a dining observation was made for the breakfast meal on the D hallway. On 6/26/24 at 8:08 AM, CNA 6 was observed to serve a bite of food to resident 84. CNA 6 then handed a stool over the top of the table to another CNA. The stool was passed over resident 24's meal. CNA 6 then cleaned spilled milk off the floor. CNA 6 did not perform hand hygiene. On 6/26/24 at 8:13 AM, CNA 6 assisted resident 40, resident 24, and resident 63 with a bite of food. CNA 6 then provided resident 21 with a drink of a beverage while touching 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.
Show the remaining 14 citations
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-24 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined, in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated. Specifically, for 6 out of 13 sampled residents, the facility did not thoroughly investigate resident to resident altercations, a resident with an injury of unknown origin, and a family to resident altercation. Resident Identifiers: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10. Findings included: 1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, stage 3 chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and mood disorder. Resident 2's medical record was reviewed on 10/23/23. On 3/13/23, an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented resident 2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A care plan initiated on 5/9/23 documented, [Resident 2] has potential for a behavior problem r/t [related…
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 · D2022-11-15 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a need to alter treatment significantly. Specifically, for 1 out of 36 sampled residents, the facility nursing staff did not notify the provider when a resident's blood sugar (BS) was lower than 60 and greater than 400 as ordered by the physician. Resident identifier: 53. Findings included: Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea, and iron deficiency anemia. On 11/7/22 at 10:22 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 53. Resident 53 stated he had been a type 1 diabetic since he was 18. Resident 53 stated that the staff checked his blood sugars four times a day and the staff gave him insulin. Resident 53 stated the he was being undermedicated on his insulin. Resident 53 stated that he had asked various nurses for more insulin but the nurses…
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 · D2022-11-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental, and psychosocial needs. Specifically, for 1 out of 36 sampled residents, a resident's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care plan was not revised after the resident sustained an injury during a Hoyer lift transfer. Furthermore, the care plan did not have a focus area that addressed the resident's scrotal laceration with identified interventions. Resident identifier: 77. Finding included: Resident 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, quadriplegia Cervical (C) 5 through C7 incomplete, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dysphagia, reduced mobility, anemia, mood disorder with depressive features, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, metabolic encephalopathy, hypotension, chronic respiratory failure, pressure ulcer of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-15 · 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, and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, for 1 out of 36 sampled residents, facility staff did not have a process implemented on how often an oxymask needed to be changed. Resident identifier: 53 Findings included: Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea, and iron deficiency anemia. On 11/7/22 at 10:22 AM, an observation was made of resident 53's oxygen mask that appeared very used due to an off yellow coloring and flimsy material. An interview was immediately conducted with resident 53. Resident 53 stated the staff did not change his oxygen mask often and was unable to give a date when it was last changed. Resident 53's medical record was reviewed on 11/9/22. A quarterly Minimum Data Set…
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 before2022-11-15 · 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, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that the resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug was any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indications for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicated the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any combination of the reasons stated in this section. Specifically, for 2 out of 36 sampled residents, a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) administered a medication to a resident that was obtained from inside the resident's backpack, and a Registered Nurse (RN) connected an intravenous antibiotic to a resident's peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and did not start the antibiotic infusion for sixty minutes after connecting the antibiotic. Resident identifiers: 77 and 218. Findings included: 1. Resident 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-15 · 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, the facility must store all drugs and biologicals under proper temperature controls. Specifically, medications were not stored at the proper temperature according to manufacturer's recommendations. Findings included: On 11/9/22 at 11:36 AM, an observation of the medication refrigerator located in the medication storage room on Hall A was conducted. The thermometer located on the top shelf of the refrigerator read 32 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The freezer was located directly above the top shelf where the medications were stored. The following medications were observed located on top shelf of the refrigerator: a. Trulicity Pen 45 milligrams/0.5 milliliter (ml) b. Prevnar 13 syringe 0.5 ml c. NovoLog 100 unit/ml FlexPen The Refrigerator and Freezer Temperature Log was reviewed for October and November 2022. The log had documented temperatures and staff initials for each day the refrigerator temperature had been checked. The following dates were noted to be out of range of manufacturer's recommendations. a. On 10/9/22,…
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 · D2022-11-15 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — isolatedSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of correction to correct identified quality deficiencies. Specifically, the facility was found to be in non-compliance with F880, which was cited within the facility's 2019 and 2021 recertification survey. Findings included: A standard recertification survey was completed on 2/21/2019. During the survey deficiencies F684, F688, F710, F761, F810, F812, and F880 were cited. A standard recertification survey was completed on 4/8/2021. During the survey deficiencies F584, F600, F607, F842, F880, and F924 were cited. Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, 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, for 1 out of 36 sampled residents, observations were made of cross contamination,…
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 before2022-11-15 · 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, 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, for 1 out of 36 sampled residents, observations were made of cross contamination, gloves not changed, and hand hygiene not performed during a dressing change. Resident identifier: 77. Findings included: Resident 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to quadriplegia Cervical (C) 5 through C7 incomplete, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dysphagia, reduced mobility, anemia, mood disorder with depressive features, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, metabolic encephalopathy, hypotension, chronic respiratory failure, pressure ulcer of right buttocks stage 4, pressure ulcer of back, buttocks and hip stage 4, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of right heel,…
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 · Fcited before2021-04-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 12 of 50 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 of a staff reconnecting a ventilator tubing to a resident's tracheostomy connector barehanded after it had fallen to the floor, new admissions were not quarantined and isolated on contact/droplet precautions, a resident exposed to a positive COVID-19 infection was not quarantined and isolated on contact/droplet precautions, a hoyer lift used in a contact precautions isolation room was not disinfected prior to use with another resident, vital sign equipment was not disinfected between resident use, dialysis staff were observed not wearing a face mask, hand hygiene was not performed during a dressing change, hand hygiene was not performed…
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 before2021-04-08 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Specifically, observations were made of residents smoking in close proximity to the facility creating smoking odors in the resident hallways. Findings include: On 4/5/2021 at 10:56 AM, an observation was conducted of residents smoking outside the D hall exit door on the patio. Residents were observed smoking near the No Smoking sign, which was located within 25 feet of the doorway. A vertical ashtray was located next to the No Smoking sign. A Smoking Permitted sign was around the corner on the patio with a fire extinguisher hanging underneath the sign. Residents were supervised by staff. On 4/6/2021 at 10:36 AM, an observation was conducted of 4 residents smoking outside the D hall exit door on the patio near the No Smoking. Residents were supervised by staff. On 4/6/2021 at 10:40 AM, an observation was conducted of 2 residents that came inside the facility after smoking on the D hall patio. Cigarette smoke could be smelled inside…
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 · E2021-04-08 · tag F0924 — patternPut firmly secured handrails on each side of hallways.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview it was determined, that the facility did not ensure that all handrails in the facility were secured on each side of the hallways. Findings include: On 4/7/2021 at approximately 10:00 AM, it was observed that loose handrails were found at the following locations: a. C Hall between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. b. C Hall between the hallway lavatory and room [ROOM NUMBER]. c. D Hall near the nurses station. d. D Hall next to the smoking patio. e. Main Hall in the middle of hallway. f. Main hall next to Heritage Square. On 4/7/2021 at 2:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Staff Member (MSM). The MSM stated that requests for maintenance come through the computer system which prioritizes work orders. The MSM stated that he was unaware of any handrails which were loose, and that staff must not have been reporting them.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-04-08 · 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 interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 50 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that all residents were free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of residential property and exploitation. Specifically, staff observed a resident to resident abuse from resident 72 directed to resident 47. Resident 72 also admitted to resident abuse and agitation towards resident 47. Resident identifiers: 47 and 72. Findings include: Resident 72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but not limited to a history of cerebral infarction, major depression, hypothyroidism, bipolar disorder, morbid obesity, epilepsy, osteoarthritis, dysphagia, insomnia, and obstructive sleep disorder. On 4/8/2021 at 10:43 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 72. Resident 72 stated he did not get along with his roommate, resident 47. Resident 72 stated that resident 47 frequently moaned and answered for him which resident 72 stated was annoying. Resident 72 stated that because…
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 · D2021-04-08 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 50 sampled residents, that the facility did not implement policies to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately, but not later than 24 hours. Specifically, nursing staff did not report a witnessed incident of resident to resident verbal abuse. Resident identifiers: 47 and 72. Findings include: Resident 72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but not limited to a history of cerebral infarction, major depression, hypothyroidism, bipolar disorder, morbid obesity, epilepsy, osteoarthritis, dysphagia, insomnia, and obstructive sleep disorder. Review of the facility Policy and Procedure for Abuse documented that all allegations or suspicions of abuse was to be reported to the administrator immediately. Review of the facility training records for abuse revealed Abuse…
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 · D2021-04-08 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility did not maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and readily accessible. Additionally, the facility did not keep confidential all information contained in the resident's records, regardless of the form of storage method of the records. Specifically, for 1 of 50 sampled residents, physician visit notes including an evaluation of the resident's condition and total program of care were not included in the medical record. Additionally, on four separate occasions the facility did not safeguard medical record information. Resident identifier: 17 and 73. Findings include: 1. Resident 73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but not limited to bilateral osteoarthritis of hip, pre-diabetes, muscle weakness, reduced mobility, glaucoma, dorsalgia, essential hypertension, history of falling, and other specified symptoms and signs involving the circulatory and respiratory systems. Resident 73's medical…
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
$36,645 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $36,645 — penalty dated 2024-07-02
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 | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| FLETCHER, JEFF | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2017 |
| STELTER, CASEY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/24/2018 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2017 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/01/2011 |
| MOSS, TYLER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2017 |
| WEST 5600 HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/03/2026 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2017 |
| STANDARD BEARER HEALTHCARE OP, LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2017 |
| THE ENSIGN GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2017 |
| WEST 5600 HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
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.
About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 465003. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-02, 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.