No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

St Joseph Villa

451 East Bishop Federal Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 · For profit - Corporation · 221 certified beds · (801) 487-7557 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (801) 487-7557 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citations — no harm found (F0604, F0609) — most recent Jul 20241 actual-harm citation2 actual-harm citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • 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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Urgent care / clinic
Pharmacy
2000 S 900 E · (801) 464-7510 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
623 E Coatsville Ave · (801) 243-2801 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1815 S 300 E · (801) 972-7800 · Typically dawn to dusk

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased22.4%11.3%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.3%3.4%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.1%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.3%1.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms14.2%16.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.8%2.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened33.6%15.1%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.9%25.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine99.3%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.8%3.9%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control27.3%21.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.2%14.2%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.5%0.9%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine89.6%91.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission19.2%16.5%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.7%11.6%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.851.251.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.151.431.80better

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.

70.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 226 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

70.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
73.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.91U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.35hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.37hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.18hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 73.7% 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 148 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 0.91 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 96% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF70.5%CMS range 62.5–75.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.0%CMS range 5.8–10.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge73.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge66.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge66.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified99.5%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.3%CMS range 5.2–11.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.021.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.02
RN hours/ resident / day
0.34
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.22
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.59
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.60
RN hoursweekends
31.2%
Total nursing turnover
18.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 221 beds and averages 172.3 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 49 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.02 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.22 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 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.76 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.20 to 0.60 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-07-16)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2022-09-01)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-07-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 89 residents received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, a resident was transferred with the help of one staff member using a sit to stand device. This was determined to have occurred at a harm level. However, based on the facility's investigation and corresponding correction, this was cited at past non-compliance. Resident identifier: 217. Findings include: 1. Resident 217 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebrovascular accident, right bundle branch block, heart failure, and major depressive disorder. Resident 217's medical record was reviewed from 7/8/24 through 7/16/24. On 9/27/23, the facility completed a Functional Performance Evaluation for resident 217. The evaluation indicated that the resident was unable to stand up from a seated position due to medical condition or safety concerns. The evaluation also indicated that 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2022-09-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 42 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers (PU) received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing. Specifically, the resident developed multiple areas of new pressure ulcers after admission to the facility. The deficient practice identified was found to have occurred at a harm level. Resident identifier: 83. Findings included: Resident 83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of incomplete paraplegia, osteomyelitis, neurogenic bowel, type 2 diabetes mellitus, gastro-esophageal reflux, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and major depressive disorder. On 8/29/22 at 1:59 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 83. Resident 83 stated he had a PU on the buttocks. Resident 83 stated he received…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2022-09-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 1 of 42 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, a dependent resident sustained a fall from a Hoyer lift after a one person physical assist which resulted in a head lacertion and a tibial fracture. Resident identifier: 44. Findings include: Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included displaced bicondylar fracture of left tibia, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, profound intellectual disabilities, blindness, osteoarthritis and limited range of motion. Resident 44's medical record was reviewed on 9/1/22. A Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed that resident 44 had limited range of motion to both upper extremities and one side of the lower extremities. Resident 44 required extensive two…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2024-07-16 · tag F0801 — pattern
    Employ 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on interview, the facility did to 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 7/8/24 at 8:48 AM, an interview was conducted with the DM. The DM stated she had not completed the required certification to work as the dietary manager. The DM stated the facility had a contracted RD that was at the facility on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and that she was always available by phone. On 7/16/24 at 4:02 PM, a second interview was conducted with the DM. The DM stated she had not completed a course in food service safety and management, a Certified Dietary Manager course, a certified food service manager course, or a nationally recognized certification or associates degree or higher in food service and safety.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-07-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    Safeguard 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 interview and record review it was determined, for 52 of 89 sampled residents, that the facility did not keep confidential all information contained in the resident's records, regardless of the form or storage method of the records. Additionally, the facility did not maintain the medical records on each resident that were complete, accurately documented, and readily accessible. Specifically, residents' names were included in a different residents medical records, and a resident's medical records from the hospital were not included in the residents electronic medical records at the facility. Resident identifiers: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 16, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 36, 45, 55, 63, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 81, 85, 88, 89, 91, 93, 100, 103, 105, 109, 111, 112, 113, 117, 119, 137, 138, 139, 141, 145, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225 and 363. Findings Included: 1. The following form entitled Orders dated 1/15/24 was located in resident 4, 221, 145, 91, 6, 3, 88, 8, 222, 109, 22, 66 and 103's electronic…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 found that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 89 sampled residents. Specifically, a resident with a pressure injury was not provided dressing changes for 12 days. Resident identifier: 129. Findings include: Resident 129 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, bacteremia, fistula of intestine, colostomy, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, vitamin D deficiency, anemia, chronic kidney disease stage 3, pressure ulcer of sacral region, depression, and adult failure to thrive. Resident 129's medical record was reviewed from 7/8/24 through 7/16/24. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed resident 129 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-16 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolated
    Provide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 89 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide or obtain outside resources for routine and emergency dental services to meet the needs of the residents. Specifically, a resident was not provided dental services after requesting to see one. Resident identifier: 38. Findings include: Resident 38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fibromyalgia, systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic pain syndrome, depression, generalized anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. On 7/10/24 at 1:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 38. Resident 38 stated that she has not seen a dentist and would like to see one. Resident 38 stated that she has several missing teeth, and it is hard for her to chew. Resident 38's medical record was reviewed 7/8/23 through 7/16/24. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 38 had a broken or loosely…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. Specifically, a resident was noted to have bruising on his shoulder, but this was not reported as possible neglect or abuse for approximately 2 days. Resident identifier: 217. Findings include: Resident 217 was admitted to 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-09-01 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview it was determined, for 1 of 42 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident's right to self-administer medications was evaluated by the interdisciplinary team and was determined to be clinically appropriate. Specifically, a resident self administered their medications without an evaluation to determine if it was safe for the resident to exercise that right. Resident identifier: 77. Findings included: Resident 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, chronic pain, heart failure, hypertension, major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, cognitive communication deficit, peripheral vascular disease, tremor, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. On 8/30/22 at 8:24 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 77. Resident 77 stated that she had constant abdominal pain due to kidney stones. Resident 77 stated that she received medication for the pain and then…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-09-01 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    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 when the use of restraints was indicated, the facility used the least restrictive alternative for the least amount of time. Specifically, for 1 out of 42 sampled residents, a resident with a seatbelt was unable to release it. Staff were not observed to release the restraint and reposition the resident for over 3 hours. Resident identifier: 12. Findings included: Resident 12 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral palsy, type 2 diabetes mellitus, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, dysphagia, need for assistance with personal care, contracture left hip, limitation of activities due to disability, contracture of muscle right forearm, contracture right knee, contracture left knee, major depressive disorder, contracture unspecified joint, contracture of muscle right hand, muscle weakness, and retention of urine. On 8/29/22 at 2:24 PM,…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2020-03-04 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — pattern
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    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 ensure that the resident's medical records were secured and confidential. Specifically, observations were made of computer screens left unattended and displaying resident personal information. In addition, residents were observed in the area with the unattended computer screens. Findings include: On 3/3/20 at 8:03 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 2 was observed to walk away from a computer that was on the medication cart located in the hallway on the northeast side of the 3rd floor. The computer screen was observed to have resident information open and visible. There were five residents observed sitting around the area of the unattended open computer screen. On 3/4/20 at 7:08 AM, RN 1 was observed to walked away from a computer on a medication cart with a residents medical record open and visible. The computer was by the North [NAME] nurses' station on the 2nd floor. The open computer screen was observed to be unattended for 3 minutes. On 3/4/20 at 7:35 AM, RN 3 was observed to leave person identifying…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2020-03-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the drugs were label according to accepted professional principles and stored in a locked compartment. Specifically, medications were found in resident's rooms, and medication carts were not kept secured. Findings include: 1. On 3/2/20 at 7:30 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER] with a bottle of Advil and fluticasone nasal spray on the resident's bedside table. 2. On 3/2/20 at 7:34 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER] with an unlabeled medication cup on the resident's shelf; the cup contained a white powder. 3. On 3/4/20 at 7:32 AM, an observation was made of Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 left the medication cart unlocked and unattended while administering medications to a resident. RN 1 stated he was going to wash his hands. RN 1 was observed to go into the bathroom. RN 1 returned to the cart at 7:34 AM. 4. On 3/4/20 at 8:03 AM, an observation was made of the third East…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2020-03-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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, interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, there were cracked tiles in the dishmachine area that had pooling water, there was pealing paint above the food preparation area, and there were soiled areas behind the equipment. Findings include: 1. On 3/2/20 at 7:40 AM, an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following was observed: a. There were 2 spots of pealing paint on the ceiling in the kitchen. Food was observed to be transported under the pealing paint. b. There was dust and debris behind the ovens, stove, steamer and griddle. c. There were 4 broken tiles in the dishmachine area. There was water pooling in the area that pieces of tiles were missing. 2. On 3/4/20 at approximately 12:30 PM, a follow up kitchen tour was conducted. The following was observed: a. There were 2 spots of pealing pain on the ceiling in the kitchen. Food was observed to be transported under the pealing paint. b. There was…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2020-03-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview the facility did not establish and 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, staff were observed to cross contamination while serving residents in the dining room. In addition, hygiene products in shared bathrooms were not labeled. Resident identifiers: 46, 48 Findings include: 1. On 3/2/20 at 8:00 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 was observed in the 3rd floor dining room assisting two residents with eating. CNA 2 was observed to finger sweep of resident 48's mouth with her index finger to remove a large amount of chewed but unswallowed food. CNA 2 was not observed to use a glove, CNA 2 was observed to wrap a cloth napkin around her index finger prior to placing her finger in resident 48's mouth. After removing the unswallowed food CNA 2 placed the napkin on the table and began feeding…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 53.2-0.2 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 52.7+1.3 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.4-0.4 vs chain
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
1 of 5Aspen Health And WellnessOverland Park, KS 1 of 5Bennett Hills Rehabilitation and Care CenterGooding, ID 1 of 5Broadway By The SeaLong Beach, CA 1 of 5Chatsworth Park Health Care CenterChatsworth, CA 1 of 5Clarion Wellness and Rehabilitation CenterClarion, IA 1 of 5Colonial Manor of RandolphRandolph, NE 1 of 5Durango Health And RehabilitationDurango, CO 1 of 5Fort Dodge Health and RehabilitationFort Dodge, IA 1 of 5Greater Southside Health and RehabilitationDes Moines, IA 1 of 5Hearthstone Health And RehabilitationSparks, NV 1 of 5Heritage Gardens Rehabilitation and HealthcareCarrollton, TX 1 of 5Hillcrest Health Care CenterHawarden, IA 1 of 5Lake Village Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterLewisville, TX 1 of 5Lakeside Rehabilitation and Care CenterCoeur d'Alene, ID 1 of 5Legend Oaks Healthcare And Rehabilitation - NorthAustin, TX 1 of 5Legend Oaks Healthcare And Rehabilitation - WaxahaWaxahachie, TX 1 of 5Legend Oaks Healthcare and Rehabilitation - Fort WKeller, TX 1 of 5Madera Post Acute CenterEl Monte, CA 1 of 5Medallion Post Acute RehabilitationColorado Springs, CO 1 of 5Mesquite Post Acute CareLubbock, TX 1 of 5Millbrook Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenterLancaster, TX 1 of 5Misty Willow Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenterHouston, TX 1 of 5New Orange HillsOrange, CA 1 of 5Northeast Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Northgate PlazaIrving, TX 1 of 5Oak View Health And RehabilitationConway, SC 1 of 5Oakwood Care And RehabilitationLakewood, CO 1 of 5Omaha Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterOmaha, NE 1 of 5Onion Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterAustin, TX 1 of 5Park Manor Bee CaveBee Cave, TX 1 of 5Pelican Pointe Health And Rehabilitation CenterWindsor, CO 1 of 5Premier Care Center For Palm SpringsPalm Springs, CA 1 of 5Provo Rehabilitation and NursingProvo, UT 1 of 5Rock Canyon Respiratory And Rehabilitation CenterPueblo, CO 1 of 5Rosewood Rehabilitation CenterReno, NV 1 of 5San Marcos Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterSan Marcos, TX 1 of 5Sonterra Health CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5SouthlandNorwalk, CA 1 of 5Southland Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterLufkin, TX 1 of 5Spencer Post Acute Rehabilitation CenterSpencer, IA

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
ALBRECHTSEN, BRADIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2011
GANGOTENA-BERNARD, FATIMAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/26/2024
BURNAM, SOONIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/01/2011
DAVIDSON, CRAIGIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/20/1990
KEETCH, CHADIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/01/2011
MOSS, TYLERIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/01/2015
SUCCESSOR HEALTHCARE LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2016
CARETRUST GP LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2016
CARETRUST REIT INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2016
CTR PARTNERSHIP LPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2016
ENSIGN SERVICES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/08/2010
MISSION CCRC LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2016

CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$28.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+14.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.5M
Related-party expense10% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 71%Medicare 11%Other / private 17%

About 71% 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 $2.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$405per resident / day
operating cost
$12,301per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$473per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in UT

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Utah
$8,669/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,646/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,475/mo
Assisted living

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 465095. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-16, 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.

What to do next