Stonehenge of Ogden
5648 South Adams Avenue, Washington Terrace, UT 84405 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 52 certified beds · (801) 475-0500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Jun 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 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 | 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 4 to 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 | 29.6% | 11.3% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.1% | 3.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.0% | 16.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 43.6% | 15.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.9% | 25.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.5% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.6% | 3.9% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.9% | 21.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.6% | 14.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 0.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.4% | 91.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.4% | 16.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.5% | 11.6% | 12.0% | worse |
* 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.
§ 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.
60.5% 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 249 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 80.0% 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 135 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 0.79 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 60.5%CMS range 54.4–65.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 7.3–13.3 | 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 | 80.0% | 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 | 77.0% | 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 | 83.0% | 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 | 99.4% | 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 | 98.7% | 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 | 0.6% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.6–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 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 52 beds and averages 47.3 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.20 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.22 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.33 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 3.73 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.39 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.36 to 0.88 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide 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 residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents goals, and preferences. Specifically, for 4 out of 27 sample residents the facility was not dating the change of oxygen tubing and nasal cannulas, nor ensuring there was a physician order for the use of oxygen for two residents (residents 7 and 8). Resident Identifiers: 7, 8, 19, and 20. Findings included: 1. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included viral intestinal infection, hypokalemia, hypercalcemia, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, dyspnea, essential hypertension, insomnia, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Resident 7's medical record was reviewed 6/24/24-6/27/24. On 6/24/24 at 10:27 AM, an interview 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and observation, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, an employee was observed in the kitchen area without a hair net; and a refrigerator was observed to have spoiled, undated and unlabeled food. Findings include: 1. On 6/24/24 at 12:51 PM, the Maintenance Director (MD) was observed to enter the facility kitchen. The MD was observed to check several lights and sprinkler heads on the kitchen ceiling. At 12:52 PM, the MD left the kitchen, obtained a ladder that had been placed near the dining room entrance, and re-entered the kitchen. At no time was the MD observed to place a hair net over his hair. 2. On 6/24/24 at 12:57 PM, an observation was made of the refrigerator in the dining room. The following was noted: a. An open bag of grapes with no date or label b. A styrofoam container of what appeared to be leftovers. This container was not dated or labeled. c. An open bag of chips with no date or label d. What appeared to be an onion in a plastic bag. The onion…
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 · D2024-06-27 · 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 27 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that residents remained free from abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property. Specifically, there were residents in a relationship that had not been evaluated to have the capacity to consent. Resident identifiers: 13 and 151. Findings include: A. Resident 151 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included vascular dementia, unspecified severity, with agitation, acquired absence of right leg below knee, acquired absence of left leg below knee, occlusion and stenosis of bilateral carotid arteries, and duodenal ulcer, without hemorrhage or perforation. Resident 151's medical records were reviewed between 6/24/24 and 6/27/24. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that resident 151 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 which indicated severely impaired cognition. A review of resident 151's care plan initiated…
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 · D2024-06-27 · 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, the facility did not develop and implement written policies and procedures that; prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents. In addition, the facility did not established polices and procedures to investigate any such allegations. Specifically, for 2 out of 27 sample residents, investigations and evaluations of ability to consent were not conducted after two residents were found to be in bed together. Resident identifiers: 13 and 151. Findings included: The facility's Abuse Prohibition Policies, dated 2024, was reviewed and documented the following information: The Provider Code of Conduct is to protect vulnerable clients (residents) from abuse, neglect, maltreatment and exploitation . Abuse, sexual-abuse and sexual exploitation, neglect, exploitation, and maltreatment are prohibited. A. No .individual . shall abuse, sexually abuse or sexually exploit, neglect, exploit or maltreat any client . 1. No person shall cause physical Injury to any client.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-11 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 the resident's right to formulate an advanced directive. Specifically, for 1 out of 24 sampled residents, the resident's electronic medical record documented that the resident was a Do not attempt or continue any resuscitation (DNR) and Do not attempt to intubate (DNI) while the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form documented the resident's wishes as Attempt to resuscitate, full treatment. Resident identifier: 136. Findings included: Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, shortness of breath, pressure ulcer unspecified stage, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of sacral region, Parkinson's disease, anxiety disorder, and hypertension. Resident 136's electronic medical record dashboard documented the code status as DNR/DNI. On 1/5/23, resident 136's POLST documented Attempt to resuscitate, full treatment. On 1/10/23 at 9:40 AM,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-11 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 when a resident was transferred or discharged that the appropriate information was communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider. Specifically, for 2 out of 24 sampled residents, residents were transferred to the hospital and no documentation could be found that the receiving institution was provided the contact information of the practitioner, resident representative information, advanced directives information, comprehensive care plan, and all other necessary information to ensure a safe and effective transition of care. Resident identifiers: 15 and 137. Findings included: 1. Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, fall, peripheral neuropathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Crohn's disease, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, history of pulmonary embolism, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, and post-traumatic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal hygiene. Specifically, for 1 out of 24 sampled residents, a resident who required bathing assistance was not provided a shower since admission. Resident identifier: 141. Findings included: Resident 141 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute and chronic respiratory failure, pneumonia, severe sepsis, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, hyperparathyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, and metabolic encephalopathy. On 1/9/23 at 9:13 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 141. Resident 141 stated that she had not had a shower since she had been admitted . Resident 141 stated it had been over a week since she had a shower. Resident 141 stated that she would need staff assistance with the shower. Review of resident 141's bathing task…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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, the facility did not ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing. Specifically, for 1 out of 24 sampled residents, an observation was made of wound care to a resident's coccyx pressure ulcer that was not consistent with the physician's orders for wound care. Resident identifier: 136. Finding included: Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, shortness of breath, pressure ulcer unspecified stage, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of sacral region, Parkinson's disease, anxiety disorder, and hypertension. On 1/9/23 at 10:52 AM, an observation was made of resident 136 lying supine in bed with bilateral feet elevated. An air mattress was noted on the bed. Resident 136's physician's order for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-11 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment. Specifically, for 1 out of 24 sampled residents, a resident's tube feeding was not infusing at the prescribed infusion rate. Resident identifier: 17. Findings included: Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, myelodysplastic syndrome, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, bacteremia, sepsis, atherosclerotic heart disease, ascites, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, and acute kidney failure. On 1/9/23 at 10:55 AM, an observation was made of resident 17's tube feeding (TF). Resident 17's TF was infusing at a rate of 70 milliliters per hour (ml/hr) with a flush of 30 milliliters (ml) every (Q) four hours. The TF bag was labeled Glucerna 1.2 and dated 1/9/23 at 10:45 AM. Resident 17'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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-01-11 · 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 that was 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 24 sampled residents, observations were made of staff exiting a resident's room that was on contact precautions and then entering another residents room without performing hand hygiene after having touched environmental surfaces in both rooms. Additionally, observations were made during wound care of staff not performing hand hygiene and cross contamination. Resident identifiers: 136. Findings included: 1. On 1/9/23 at 9:04 AM, an observation was made of Student Certified Nurse Assistant (SCNA) entering room [ROOM NUMBER]. room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with signs posted on the door that stated contact precautions. The sign documented to perform hand hygiene before entering 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.
- Potential for harm · E2021-09-02 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — patternProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 prevent misappropriation of resident's medications for 5 of 17 sample residents. Specifically, one nurse misappropriated narcotic medications from the electronic medication dispenser without administering the medications to the residents, and another nurse misappropriated medications from residents' narcotic prescriptions. Additionally, 17 residents who had been discharged from the facility had medications misappropriated. Resident identifiers: 8, 15, 19, 21, and 37. Findings include: 1. Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included nondisplaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur, major depressive disorder, acute kidney failure, morbid obesity, pulmonary hypertension, nonrheumatic mitral valve disorder, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, venous thrombosis, anxiety, and pulmonary embolism. On 9/2/21, resident 37s medical record review was completed. Nursing notes revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-09-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program to prevent the transmission of communicable diseases for 1 of 17 sample residents. Specifically, a staff member entered and exited a newly admitted resident's room, who was on 14 day isolation, without donning and doffing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Resident identifier: 137 Findings include: Resident 137 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included syncope and collapse, hypotension, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis, polyneuropathy, major depressive disorder, bipolar II disorder, atherosclerotic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease. Resident 137 was designated as a new admit, requiring isolation and transmission-based precautions for 14 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On 8/30/21 at 7:14 AM a small plastic cart with PPE was observed outside resident 137's room. A transmission based precautions (TBP) sign was observed on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to STONEHENGE OF UTAH — 5 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KANE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCE SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/11/2017 |
| WILTSHIRE HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 02/27/2026 |
| STONEHENGE OF OGDEN LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/11/2017 |
| ADAMS, KURT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/2021 |
| GILLESPIE, DEBORAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/2021 |
| HOWELLS, STEPHEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/2021 |
| LOVELESS, KURT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/2021 |
| NIXON, TYLER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/14/2019 |
| ROBISON, CORY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $265K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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
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
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 465182. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-27, 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.