Life Care Center of Cheyenne
1330 Prairie Ave, Cheyenne, WY 82009 · For profit - Corporation · 160 certified beds · (307) 778-8997 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| 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 held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.7% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.5% | 5.9% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 3.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.1% | 6.5% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.2% | 4.7% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.9% | 15.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.7% | 15.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.0% | 94.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 4.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.2% | 22.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.2% | 21.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.8% | 77.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.0% | 18.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.2% | 16.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.10 | 1.29 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.36 | 2.27 | 1.80 | better |
§ 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.
64.4% 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 537 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 88.1% 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 312 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 0.60 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 88% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 64.4%CMS range 60.0–68.5 | 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 7.8–12.6 | 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 | 88.1% | 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 | 81.4% | 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 | 84.0% | 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 | 97.2% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 99.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 5.4–10.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.22 | 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 160 beds and averages 118.6 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 41 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.56 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.99 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.15 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-03-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, resident representative and staff interview, and review of policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure adequate interventions were in place to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 sample residents (#199) reviewed for accidents. This failure resulted in harm to resident #199, who sustained fractures after a fall. The findings were: Review of the 8/19/22 comprehensive MDS assessment for resident #199 showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, arthritis, malnutrition, muscle weakness (generalized), and unsteadiness on feet. The resident had a BIMS score of 9 of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Further, the assessment noted the resident was not steady when moving on or off the toilet or during surface-to-surface transfers, and was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. The assessment showed the resident required the extensive assistance of 1 staff member for transfers and toilet use, and utilized a…
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 · D2026-03-26 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident representative and staff interview, medical record review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure a notification of change of condition was given for 1 of 3 sample residents (#6) reviewed for a change in condition. The findings were:1.Review of the 1/12/26 annual MDS assessment showed resident #6 had a BIMS score of 11 out of 15 (which indicated mild cognitive impairment); showed no signs or symptoms of delirium, behaviors, or hallucinations; was continent of both bladder and bowel, and was independent with personal hygiene, oral hygiene, and toileting hygiene. The resident had diagnoses which included non-Alzheimer's dementia and depression. The findings were:a. Telephone interview with the resident's representative on 3/26/26 at 11:51 AM revealed the resident had a urinary tract infection (UTI) in February. Further, the resident's representative stated the resident had told her s/he was taking medication for an infection. At that time the resident's representative contacted the facility to obtain information related to the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to promote and facilitate resident choice and preferences for 1 of 2 sample residents (#12) reviewed. The findings were:1. Review of the 7/21/25 admission MDS assessment showed resident #12 had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and had diagnoses which included cancer, malnutrition, frequent pain, rheumatoid arthritis and muscle weakness. Further review showed the resident had major surgical procedures prior to admission to the facility which involved placement of nephrostomy tubes and a colostomy. The following concerns were identified: a. Observation on 9/24/25 at 2:31 PM showed RN #1 was changing the resident's dressings following a shower. The resident was lying in his/her bed with his/her upper body exposed and was visibly shivering. The resident verbalized that s/he was cold and CNA #1 offered to turn up the heat. RN #1 responded stating Please don't right now. RN #1 was observed wearing PPE (personal protective equipment), which…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure a Level II PASRR (preadmission screening and resident review) evaluation was completed prior to admission for 1 of 1 residents (#123) reviewed. The findings were: 1. Review of the 8/20/25 admission MDS assessment showed resident #123 had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and had diagnoses which included bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder and cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or stroke. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of the resident's PASRR Level I, dated 8/14/25, showed evidence of a mental illness which required a PASRR Level II screening prior to admission to the facility. Further review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence a PASRR Level II evaluation had been completed. 2. Interview with the NHA on 9/15/25 at 9:40 AM confirmed a PASRR Level II was not completed prior to admission.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, policy and procedure review, medical record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure effective pain management was provided to 1 of 4 residents (#12) reviewed for pain management. The findings were: 1. Review of the 7/21/25 admission MDS assessment showed resident #12 had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and had diagnoses which included cancer, frequent pain, rheumatoid arthritis and muscle weakness. Further review showed the resident had major surgical procedures prior to admission to the facility which involved placement of nephrostomy tubes and a colostomy. Review of the September 2025 medication administration record showed the resident was last administered 5 milligrams (mg) of oxycodone on 9/24/25 at 7 AM for a pain rating of 7 out of 10 and 500 mg of acetaminophen was administered on 9/23/25 at 9 PM. The following concerns were identified: a. Observation on 9/24/25 at 2:31 PM showed RN #1 was preparing dressing change supplies for resident #12 which was to be completed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of policy and procedures and standards of practice, the facility failed to ensure effective infection prevention practices were implemented during one random observation of linen transportation. The census was 119. The findings were: 1. Observation on 9/22/25 at 2:11 PM showed an unidentified staff member was walking down the rehabilitation hall with unbagged soiled towels in her ungloved hands and was transporting them to the soiled linen room. 2. Interview with the infection prevention coordinator on 9/25/25 at 11:56 AM revealed soiled linen should be bagged before removing them from the residents' room and remain bagged while being transported to the laundry room. 3. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention standards of practice titled Laundry and Bedding, last revised 1/08/24, showed soiled laundry should be bagged prior to transporting to the soiled linen room. 4. Review of the facility policy titled Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) and Plan, last revised 6/02/25, showed personnel must handle,…
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 before2024-09-05 · 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 ensure medications were safely stored during 1 of 2 observations of medication administration. The census was 113. The findings were: 1. Observation on 9/5/24 at 10:13 AM showed RN #1 removed a medication cup, which was not labeled and had 4 capsules in it, and placed it on the top of the medication cart in a plastic basket on an ice pack. Further observation showed the RN walked away from the medication cart and the medication remained in the basket. 2. Interview with RN #2 on 9/5/24 at 10:17 AM revealed medications should not be left unattended on the top of a medication cart. Observation at that time showed RN #2 removed the medications from the top of medication cart. 3. Interview with RN #1 on 9/5/24 at 10:25 AM revealed the medications he placed on top of the cart were probiotics the needed to be cool. Further interview revealed he was not aware the medications could not be left unattended. 4. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage dated March 2022 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 · D2024-06-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was revised as needed to reflect the resident's current needs for 1 of 23 sample residents (#5). The findings were: 1. Review of the 5/1/24 admission MDS assessment showed resident #5 had a cognitive assessment which determined the resident to be severely impaired. The resident had diagnoses which included traumatic brain dysfunction, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and anxiety disorder. Review of the physician orders showed the resident was prescribed 25 mg of Seroquel (antipsychotic) daily at bedtime for agitation on 4/27/24 and 25 mg of Zoloft (antidepressant) daily for depression on 5/16/24. Review of the care plan, last revised on 5/30/24, failed to show the care plan had been revised to include goals and interventions related to the diagnosis of depression. 2. Interview with the DON on 6/6/24 at 10 AM confirmed the care plan had not been updated to reflect the use of the antidepressant medication.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-06 · 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
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure medication-specific target symptoms were identified and monitored for 2 of 5 sample residents (#5, #29) reviewed for unnecessary medication use. The findings were: 1. Review of the 5/21/24 MDS assessment showed resident #29 had a BIMS score of 10 out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, dementia, anxiety, and depression. Review of the most current physician orders showed the resident received 25 (mg) of Seroquel (antipsychotic) by mouth in the evening related to psychotic disorder with hallucinations, 25 mg of Zoloft (antidepressant) by mouth one time a day related to depression, and 34 mg of Nuplazid (atypical antipsychotic) by mouth one time a day for Parkinson's related hallucinations. The following concerns was identified: a. Review of the June 2024 Behavior Monitoring & Interventions task showed the resident could be verbally and physically aggressive, exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior, had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-03-02 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 2 medical record storage areas (Therapy West) were safeguarded from unauthorized use. The findings were: 1. Observation on 2/27/23 at 1:58 PM of the Therapy [NAME] hall showed resident medical records were kept in a cabinet. Both doors of the cabinet were observed to be off the hinges. At that time 12 resident medical records were seen. The storage area was across from the nurses' desk, and a restroom. Further observation showed throughout the four days of the recertification survey the medical records were easily accessible and were available for unauthorized use. 2. Interview with LPN #2 on 2/28/23 at 11:13 AM confirmed the records were available for anyone to access. Further, the LPN stated she was unsure of the how long the doors had been broken. 3. Interview with the DON on 2/28/23 at 4:59 PM revealed it was the facility's expectation for the residents' medical records to be kept in a secure cabinet with the doors closed. Further, the DON stated she was aware the cabinet…
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 · D2023-03-02 · 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 observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 26 sample residents (#19, #28) had resident-specific care plans that reflected individual needs in all required areas. The findings were: 1. Review of the medical record for resident #19 showed s/he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, insomnia, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), dementia with psychotic disturbance, neuroleptic induced Parkinsonism, muscle weakness and lack of coordination. Review of the 2/3/23 quarterly MDS assessment showed the resident had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the physician's orders, printed 3/1/23, showed orders for Abilify (antipsychotic) 10 milligrams and Cymbalta (antidepressant) 90 milligrams, by mouth, daily for major depression. Interview with the resident on 3/2/23 at 11:30 AM revealed s/he was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow physician's orders for 1 of 26 sample residents (#73) reviewed. The findings were: 1. Review of the 1/13/23 quarterly MDS assessment showed resident #73 had a BIMS score of 99 indicating the resident was unable to complete the interview (severely impaired - never/rarely made decisions) and diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus and long term use of insulin. Further review showed the resident received insulin injections 7 days of the 7-day look-back period. Review of the physician's orders, printed 2/28/23, showed the facility was to check blood sugars before meals and at bedtime. The orders specified to call the physician if the blood glucose was less than 70 mg/dl or greater than 460 mg/dl. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of January 2023 MAR showed the resident had blood glucose levels less than 70 mg/dl on 1/12/23 and 1/15/23. Review of February 2023 MAR showed a greater than 460 mg/dl level on 2/2/23 and 2/3/23 and less than 70 mg/dl level on 2/10/23 at two different times.…
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 before2023-03-02 · 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, policy and procedure review, and professional standard review the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled in accordance with professional standards in 1 of 4 medication storage units (Therapy South medication cart). The finding were: 1. Observation on 3/2/23 at 9:45 AM of the Therapy South medication cart showed 2 insulin glargine 100 unit/milliliter flex pens with no open date, and 1 insulin lispro 100 unit/milliliter kwikpen with no open date. Interview at that time with RN #1 confirmed the medications were for resident use. Further, the RN stated she was unaware when the medications would expire. 2. Interview with the DON on 3/2/23 at 10:31 AM revealed it was the facility's expectation for the insulin containers to be dated with an open date when they come out of the refrigerator for use. 3. Review of policy Guidance for Using Insulin Products dated 2021 Omnicare, showed 1. Storage of Product .b.Storage of unopened insulin products outside of the refrigerator is permissible, but results in an earlier expiration date.After opening…
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 LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 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 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 193; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEVELOPERS INVESTMENT COMPANY INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2006 |
| SCEARCE, CLINT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/07/2001 |
| SCHMIDT, DEREK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2023 |
| WELSH, JANA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2021 |
| LAY, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/09/2018 |
| SWANKER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2022 |
| CROSS, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/21/1994 |
| HENRY, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/16/1999 |
| THURMOND, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/22/2000 |
| CHEYENNE OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2000 |
| LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/18/1988 |
| FLETCHER, TODD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
| PRESTON, AUBREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
| STEFKA, KRISTINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| ZIEGLER, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
| PRESTON, FORREST | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2000 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 $3.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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 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 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 535032. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-18, 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.