Wyoming Retirement Center
890 Us Hwy 20 South, Basin, WY 82410 · Government - State · 90 certified beds · (307) 568-2431 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Oct 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 5 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $146,485 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-24)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.4% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 5.9% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.6% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 3.1% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 13.8% | 6.5% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.8% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.0% | 15.3% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.5% | 15.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.9% | 94.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.5% | 4.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.2% | 22.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 36.2% | 21.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.15 | 1.29 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.83 | 2.27 | 1.80 | worse |
§ 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 90 beds and averages 68.8 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 21 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 0.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 0.00 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 0.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 0.95 on weekdays — 41% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
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.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-10-24 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, facility incident review, and policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by another resident for 1 of 12 sample residents (#1) reviewed for allegations of abuse. This failure resulted in actual physical harm to resident #1. The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #1 had a brief interview for mental status score of 7 out 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment, and diagnoses which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, osteoporosis, and restlessness and agitation. Further review showed the resident was dependent on staff to roll from lying on his/her back to his/her left and right side, lying on his/her back to sitting on the side of the bed, and transferring to the toilet. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #9 had a brief interview for mental status score of 9 out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-12-12 · 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 medical record review, incident review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by a resident for 3 of 12 sample residents (#29, #71, #73) and verbal abuse by a staff member for 1 of 12 sample residents (#72). This failure resulted in actual physical harm to resident #71 and mental harm, based on a reasonable person, to resident #72. The findings were: 1. Review of an incident report dated 10/25/24 showed the administrator and nurse manager were notified at approximately 9:15 AM of a verbal incident involving CNA #1 and resident #72. The incident report showed resident #72 was upset and began to follow CNA #1 while being verbally aggressive. At some point, the CNA turned around and engaged verbally with the resident causing other staff members to respond by assisting with redirection of the resident and staff member. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of the significant change MDS assessment dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-12-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on incident review, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of accidents for 2 of 9 sample residents (#48, #78) reviewed for accident hazards. This failure resulted in actual harm to residents #48 and #78. The findings were: 1. Review of the significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #48 had short-term and long-term memory problems and diagnoses which included fracture of the right femur, atrial fibrillation, and dementia. The resident had a BIMS score of 3 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan last revised on 9/12/24 showed resident #48 is dependent on staff for all transfers, using a gait belt. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of a progress note dated 10/20/24 and timed 5:30 AM showed CNA states that resident was being transferred X [times] 1 assist from wheelchair to bed. At this time staff member states that resident was trying to pull [his/her] brief down,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-07-03 · 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
Based on review of incident reports and facility documentation, staff and resident interviews, medical record review, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from verbal abuse by another resident for 2 of 4 allegations reviewed (residents #5 and #7), which resulted in psychosocial harm to resident to resident #5. The findings were: The facility had implemented corrective action prior to the survey and was determined to be in substantial compliance as of 6/20/24. 1. Review of the 3/30/24 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment showed resident #6 (perpetrator) had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment and had a diagnosis of Schizophrenia. Review of the 5/18/24 annual MDS assessment showed resident #5 (victim) had a BIMS score of 8 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of an incident report showed on 6/12/24 resident #5 was walking into the dining room. Resident #6 yelled at the resident Trash! You're nothing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-23 · 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
Based on medical record review, staff and resident interviews, and review of incident documentation, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse by other residents for 1 of 3 allegations of abuse reviewed (#1). Resident #1 experienced physical and psychosocial harm as a result of an interaction with another resident. The findings were: 1. Review of the 4/6/24 admission Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment showed resident #1 (victim) had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition, and had the ability to understand others and makes self understood. 2. Review of the 3/30/24 admission MDS assessment showed resident #2 (perpetrator) had a BIMS score of 1, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and a diagnosis of dementia. 3. Review of an incident report showed on 4/28/24 resident #1 came out of his/her room and told licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 that resident #2 had thrown a water cup at him/her. The cup struck the resident in the face causing a small scratch near the mouth and soaked him/her in water. The facility's conclusion…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-12-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, resident representative and staff interview, state survey agency incident database review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by another resident for 2 of 4 sample residents (#2, #4) reviewed for abuse allegations. This failure resulted in actual harm to resident #2 and resident #4 who sustained injuries during a resident-to-resident altercation. The findings were: 1. Review of the facility incident reported to the state survey agency incident database dated 12/5/23 and timed 6 PM showed resident #2 and resident #4 were involved in a resident-to-resident physical altercation in the room of resident #4. The residents were observed on the floor with resident #2's arm wrapped around the head of resident #4. Resident #4 was observed hitting resident #2, with a closed fist, in the face. Immediate interventions included removing resident #2 from the room and assisting him/her to his/her room at…
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 · E2026-07-01 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure entrapment risk was assessed, review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or representative, or obtain informed consent prior to installation for 4 of 4 sample residents (#1, #6, #9, #25) reviewed for use of bed rails. The census was 49. The findings were: 1. Observation on 6/29/26 at 11:05 AM showed resident #1 had bilateral bed enablers (bed rails) installed and attached to the bed frame. Further observation with the maintenance director on 7/1/26 at 8:45 AM showed the measurements revealed a 1-inch gap between the mattress and the enabler, a 4-inch wide by 6-inch tall gap within the rail structure, and a 5-inch by 4-inch space from the mattress to the top of the enabler. The following concerns were identified:a. Review of the medical record showed no evidence of a clinical assessment which determined the resident's risk for entrapment had been completed. Further review showed no evidence documentation of informed consent or the benefits 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 · E2026-07-01 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to offer and/or provide influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations to 5 of 5 sample residents (#9, #12, #29, #36, #56) reviewed for immunization status. The findings were:1. Review of the medical record for resident #12 showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was marked not eligible for the influenza vaccination, with no date indicated. Further review showed no evidence the resident was offered or received an annual influenza vaccination. 2. Review of the medical record for resident #29 showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE], received the PCV-23 (pneumococcal) vaccination on 4/24/2012, refused the PCV-20 (pneumococcal) vaccination on 9/23/23, and was documented refused for the influenza vaccination with no date indicated. Further review showed no evidence the resident was offered or received the PCV-20 vaccination since 9/23/23 and no evidence the resident was offered or 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.
- Potential for harm · E2026-07-01 · tag F0887 — patternEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 medical record review, staff interview, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to offer and/or provide COVID-19 vaccination to 5 of 5 sample residents (#9, #12, #29, #36, #56) reviewed for immunization status. The findings were: 1. Review of the medical record for resident #12 showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and the last COVID vaccine dose was administered on 3/31/24. Further review showed no evidence the resident was offered or received the 2025-2026 COVID vaccine. 2. Review of the medical record for resident #29 showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE], refused the COVID vaccine, and did not indicate a date when the vaccine was offered and declined. Further review showed no evidence the resident was offered or received the 2025-2026 COVID vaccine. 3. Review of the medical record for resident #36 showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and the last COVID vaccine dose…
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 · D2026-07-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to properly label and identify resident medications and failed to label opened multi-dose vials with the expiration and discard dates in 1 of 5 medication storage areas (North medication room). The census was 63. The findings were:1. Observation of the North medication room on 6/30/26 at 3:18 PM showed resident #23's Insulin Aspart pen was stored in a communal plastic container which contained other residents' insulin pens. The insulin pen lacked a formal pharmacy dispensing label. The only identifier on the medication was resident #23's first name, handwritten in marker on a piece of medical tape affixed to the pen. The pen had an expiration date of 8/31/26, an open date of 6/22/26, but no discard by date 28 days after opening. 2. Observation of the North medication room on 6/30/26 at 3:18 PM showed an Insulin Glargine pen assigned to Resident #10 had been opened and accessed. The insulin pen lacked an open date, an expiration date, and a discard by date. 3. Interview with the North unit…
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 · E2024-12-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on incident and grievance review, resident and staff interview, state survey agency incident database review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported timely for 3 of 12 sample residents (#24, #29, #33) reviewed for abuse allegations. The findings were: 1. Review of an incident report dated 11/3/24 showed resident #72 was upset because his/her meal was not to his/her liking. The resident became verbally aggressive towards staff then walked away. At that time, resident #29 was moving up the hallway in his/her power wheelchair and both residents declined to step around or give room for the other to get by. Resident #72 stepped in front of resident #29 then accused resident #29 of running into him/her. Resident #72 then struck resident #29 with an open hand on the right side of his/her face. Further review showed the allegation was not reported until 11/12/24, 9 days after the incident. 2. Review of a Resident Grievance Record dated 11/5/24 showed…
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 · E2024-12-12 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, facility incident and grievance review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 2 of 12 sample residents (#24, #33) with reviewed for abuse. The findings were: 1. Review of a Resident Grievance Record dated 11/5/24 showed resident #33 made statements of I want my table back, Table mate is being mean to me, and I don't want to eat because of [him/her]. Further review showed the resident was eating in his/her room as a result. The following concerns were identified: a. Interview with resident #33 on 12/12/24 at 8:58 AM revealed his/her previous tablemate said mean things to him/her and wanted to fight him/her. The statements upset the resident and s/he decided to eat in the unit instead of the main dining room. The resident revealed s/he did not want to return to the main dining room because of what was said to him/her. b. Review of a progress note for resident #33 dated…
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 · D2024-12-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, facility investigation review, and policy review, the facility failed to implement treatment in accordance with the care plan for 1 of 9 sample residents (#48) reviewed for accident hazards. The findings were: 1. Review of the significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #48 had short-term and long-term memory problems and diagnoses which included fracture of the right femur, atrial fibrillation, and dementia. The resident had a BIMS score of 3 out 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan last revised on 9/12/24 showed resident #48 was dependent on staff for all transfers, using a gait belt. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of a progress note dated 10/20/24 and timed 5:30 AM showed CNA states that resident was being transferred X [times] 1 assist from wheelchair to bed. At this time staff member states that resident was trying to pull [his/her] brief down, and CNA attempted to help resident pull it…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-12 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure target symptoms were identified and monitored for 1 of 5 sample residents (#36) and failed to ensure PRN orders for psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days for 1 of 5 sample residents (#67) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #36 had a BIMS score of 9 out 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and diagnoses which included non-traumatic brain dysfunction, depression, and schizophrenia. The MDS showed the resident had a mood score of 0, which indicated no signs or symptoms of depression, and there were no behaviors exhibited. Further review showed the resident received antipsychotic medication and antidepressant medication during the look-back period. Review of the physician orders showed the resident received risperidone (antipsychotic) 0.5 mg by mouth daily at bedtime for mood…
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 · D2023-09-28 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 medical record review, staff interview, MDS 3.0 RAI manual review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure MDS assessment information was an accurate reflection of resident status for 2 of 18 sample residents (#19, #25). The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #25 was coded as having a stage 3 pressure ulcer. Review of the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed the resident was coded as having a stage 3 pressure ulcer. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of the medical record showed no evidence the resident had a pressure ulcer since 2021. b. Interview with DON on 9/27/23 at 9:54 AM confirmed the resident did not have an actual wound since 2021 and the MDS assessments were not accurate. c. According to the MDS RAI Manual version 1.71.1 page 440 showed .Coding Instructions for M0300C M0300C1 Enter the number of pressure ulcers that are currently present and whose deepest anatomical stage is Stage 3. Enter 0…
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 · D2023-09-28 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure an adequate assessment was performed and appropriate interventions were implemented for 1 of 4 sample residents (#25) reviewed for nutrition. The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #25 had diagnoses which included renal insufficiency, renal failure, or end-stage renal disease, Parkinson's disease, other specified nutrition deficiencies, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Further review showed the resident required extensive physical assistance of 1 person for eating and no weight loss was indicated. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of the resident's weight history showed the resident weighed 167.3 pounds on 7/30/23 and 151 pounds on 8/7/23 which was a 16.3 pound or 9.74% loss, in 8 days. The resident weighed 129.8 pounds on 8/30/23 which was a 37.5 pound or 22.41% loss, in 31 days. The resident's weight continued to decrease to…
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 before2023-09-28 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 medical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction or risk versus benefit was performed for 1 of 5 sample residents (#39) reviewed for unnecessary medications. In addition, the facility failed to ensure as needed psychotropic medications were not ordered for greater than 14 days without physician rationale for 1 of 5 sample residents (#4) unnecessary medications. The findings were: 1. Review of the 9/16/23 quarterly MDS assessment for resident #4 showed the resident had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and diagnoses which included anxiety and depression. Review of the physician's orders for September 2023 showed the resident received lorazepam 0.5 mg1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed (PRN) for lifetime of patient, related to anxiety disorder ordered on 2/23/22. Review of the resident's care plan last revised on 6/27/23 showed to consult with 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.
“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
$146,485 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $105,284 — penalty dated 2025-10-24
- $29,153 — penalty dated 2024-12-12
- $12,048 — penalty dated 2024-07-03
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STATE OF WYOMING | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 05/23/1984 |
| TAYLOR-THOMAS, MARLA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
What families pay in WY
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 Wyoming 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 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 535021. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-01, 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.