Little Cottonwood Rehabilitation and Nursing
3094 South State Street, South Salt Lake, UT 84115 · Government - City/county · 37 certified beds · (801) 485-9007 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Oct 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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 | 3.0% | 11.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.4% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 19.6% | 16.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.7% | 15.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 52.2% | 25.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.9% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.7% | 21.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.1% | 14.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.00 | 1.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.00 | 1.43 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 37 beds and averages 37.0 residents a day — about 100% occupied, or roughly 0 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 2.06 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.19 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 1.70 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.21 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.56 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-10-09 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard 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 5 out of 19 sampled residents, that the facility did not maintain medical records on each resident that were complete; accurately documented; readily accessible; and systematically organized. Specifically, a resident's assessment was labeled with another resident's name, a resident's laboratory results were located in another resident's medical records, and a resident's shower sheet had another resident's name listed on the form. Resident identifiers: 5, 13, 15, 27, and 38. Findings included:1. Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included disorder of brain, major depressive disorder, epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder, and insomnia. The Shower Preference form located in resident 13's medical chart had resident 38's name printed on top and signed by resident 13. On 10/8/25 at 1:59 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that the shower preference sheet should have had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-09 · 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 1 of 20 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident was free from abuse. Specifically, a resident who lacked the capacity to consent to sexual activity was found engaged in a sexual act with another resident. Resident identifier: 30 and 41. Findings included: 1. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of Schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, cocaine dependence, and drug induced subacute dyskinesia. On 10/6/25 at 9:47 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 30 while the resident was ambulating down the hallway. Resident 30 stated that she did not want to die, and someone was going to kill her. Resident 30 then stated that someone programmed her to act the way she does. Resident 30 stated that she did not want to leave the facility because she had friends at the facility and that she did not have any problems with any of the other residents. Resident 30's thoughts and speech were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-09 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 20 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that cause the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and the State Survey Agency (SSA). Specifically, an allegation of sexual abuse was not reported to the state survey agency for approximately 12 hours after the incident occurred. Resident identifiers: 30 and 41. Findings included:Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of Schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, cocaine dependence, and drug induced subacute dyskinesia. On 10/6/25 through 10/8/25, resident 30's medical records and the facility abuse investigation were reviewed. The facility abuse investigation documentation was reviewed. The Form 358 documented that the nurse on shift, Registered Nurse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-09 · tag F0728 — failed to protect against nurse-aide misconduct — isolatedEnsure that nurse aides who have worked more than 4 months, are trained and competent; and nurse aides who have worked less than 4 months are enrolled in appropriate training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled: 20Number of residents cited: 0 Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility did not ensure that any individual working in the facility as a nurse aide for more than 4 months, on a full-time basis, was competent to provide nursing and nursing related services; and completed a training and competency program, or a competency evaluation program approved by the State. Specifically, a Nurse Assistant (NA) was employed at the facility on a full-time basis, for approximately 9 months without completion of training and competency evaluation program. Findings included:On 10/6/25, a list of employees with their start date was requested from the facility Administrator.NA 1's employee file was reviewed and documented with a start date of 10/17/23, as a housekeeper.On 10/8/25 at 1:17 PM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted. The DON stated that NA 1 started in housekeeping, they trained her initially as a hospitality aide, and continued her training to be a CNA. The DON stated that NA 1 completed her clinical nursing…
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 · F2022-09-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, cross contamination was observed in the kitchen during the dish cleaning process, the dishmachine did not reach the appropriate temperature, meals were not served appropriately, and multiple areas of the kitchen were observed to be soiled or in disrepair. Resident identifiers: 4 and 11. Findings include: 1. On 9/26/22 at 7:00 AM, Dietary Staff Member (DSM) 1 was observed in the kitchen next to the steam table area containing food. DSM 1 did not have a mask on. On 9/26/22 at 7:15 AM, an interview was conducted with DSM 1. DSM 1 stated that he did not like to wear masks because they were itchy. 2. On 9/26/22 at 7:05 AM, the dining area was observed. Multiple residents were observed to have been served a portion of bread crumbs, including residents 4 and 11. On 9/26/22 at approximately 7:20 AM, an interview was conducted with DSM 1. DSM 1 stated that if residents were on a mechanical soft…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-10-09 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status. Specifically, for 3 out of 20 sampled residents, the facility coded a resident as having received insulin during the seven day Minimum Data Set (MDS) observation period when the resident had not received any insulin. Resident Identifiers: 2, 7, and 28.1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included secondary parkinsonism, disorder of brain, schizoaffective disorder, depressive type, personality disorder, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Review of resident 2's medical record was completed on 10/6/25 through 10/8/25. Resident 2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], was reviewed. The MDS assessment documented that Resident 2 received insulin on one of seven days of the seven-day lookback observation period. Resident 2's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], was reviewed. The MDS assessment documented that Resident 2 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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in UT
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 46A066. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-09, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.