Mountain View Skilled Nursing Community at WLRC
8204 Wyoming State Highway 789, Lander, WY 82520 · Government - State · 40 certified beds · (307) 335-6700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Apr 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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 (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $50,980 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-15)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection 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) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 3.6% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.7% | 5.9% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 8.6% | 3.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 13.0% | 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 | 1.7% | 4.7% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.9% | 15.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 43.1% | 15.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 4.6% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.7% | 22.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 96.3% | 21.8% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
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.
20 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-04-24 · 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 observation, staff interview, record review, facility investigation review, and policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse by staff and residents for 3 of 8 sample residents (#4,#12,#16) reviewed for allegations of abuse and neglect. This failure resulted in actual harm to resident #16. The findings were: 1.Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #4 had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, which indicated normal cognitive function and diagnoses of non-traumatic brain dysfunction, anxiety and schizophrenia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #16 had a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and diagnoses which included traumatic brain dysfunction, anxiety and depression. The following concerns were identified:a. Review of the facility incident report dated 3/17/26 showed there had been an incident in the kitchen area between…
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 · G2026-04-24 · 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 staff interview, medical record review, policy review, and facility incident investigation review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided for 2 of 8 sample residents (#2, #14) reviewed for accident hazards. The failure resulted in actual harm to resident #2. The findings were:1.Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed resident #2 had a BIMS score of 6 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment, and had diagnoses of traumatic brain injury, non-Alzheimer's dementia, hemiplegia, and chronic lung disease. Review of the care plan dated 3/7/25 showed the resident had a high to severe risk of choking and aspiration due to the lack of ability to clear his/her throat with textures above puree, and required 1 to 1 supervision and close attention to swallowing during all meals. The care plan showed the resident required a pureed food texture (IDDSI Level: 4) and liquid consistency of moderately thick to extremely thick (IDDSI Level 3-4). Further review showed 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-10-15 · 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 2 of 13 sample residents (#2, #3) reviewed for allegations of abuse. This failure resulted in actual physical harm to resident #2 and resident #3. The findings were:1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #2 had a brief interview for mental status score of 14 out 15, which indicated s/he was cognitively intact, and had diagnoses which included schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Further review showed the resident had physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others and verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others on 1 to 3 days during the look-back period. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of a progress note for resident #2 dated 5/14/25 and timed 11:27 PM showed D: Resident to resident aggression. A:Resident [#1] came out of [his/her] room and wanted in 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.
- Actual harm · G2025-10-15 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
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, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure necessary behavioral health care and services were provided to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 13 sample residents (#1) who was reviewed for behavioral health interventions. This failure resulted in actual 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 15 out 15, which indicated s/he was cognitively intact, and had diagnoses which included cerebral vascular accident, non-Alzheimer's dementia, seizure disorder, traumatic brain injury, anxiety disorder, depression, and psychotic disorder. Further review showed the resident had verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others 1 to 3 days during the look-back period. Review of the care plan for resident #1 dated 4/3/2024-Present showed Behavioral Symptoms: Baseline Behaviors [resident…
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 before2023-10-10 · 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 reports and facility documentation, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by a client from another facility for 1 of 1 sample residents (#1) reviewed for abuse allegations, which resulted in physical and psychosocial harm. Corrective measures were implemented by the facility prior to the survey and compliance was determined to be met on 10/6/23. The findings were: 1. Review of the 9/12/23 significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment showed resident #1 scored 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. 2. Review of a progress note dated 9/19/23 showed the resident attended work for a little while, but then came home due to an altercation. 3. Review of an incident report submitted to Healthcare Licensing and Surveys (HLS) showed on 9/19/23 a client (#C1) from another facility (located on the same campus) attacked resident #1 at the resident's work station. It was documented 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-08-15 · 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 review of medical records, staff interview, review of facility investigations and incident reports, and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical and mental abuse by a resident for 1 of 4 residents (#3) reviewed for abuse. This failure resulted in harm to resident #3, who sustained bruising and expressed continued fear of resident #4. The findings were: Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] for resident #4 showed the resident had diagnoses which included CVA, non-Alzheimer's dementia, seizure disorder, TBI, and psychotic disorder. Further review showed the resident had a BIMS score of 13/15, indicating intact cognition. Review of the resident's reported behavior showed behavioral symptoms of hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching, grabbing, threatening others and screaming and cursing at others occurred 1 to 3 days every week. Review of the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] for resident #3 showed the resident had diagnoses…
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 · D2026-04-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, medical record review, facility investigation review, professional standard review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 8 sample residents (#10) reviewed for quality of care. The findings were:1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #10 had a BIMS score of 9 out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and had diagnoses which included nontraumatic brain dysfunction, schizoaffective disorder, depression and hypertension. Review of the resident's care plan last revised on 3/19/26 showed a history of delirium, cognitive loss, depression and non-compliance with taking medications. Further review showed the resident did not believe s/he had medical issues and s/he did not need medications. The care plan showed nurses were to approach the resident calmly to inform him/her when it was time for his/her medication and if s/he refused,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility incident report review, state survey agency incident database review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure timely reporting of allegations of abuse for 2 of 13 sample residents (#1, #2) reviewed for allegations of abuse. The findings were: 1. Review of a facility incident report dated 9/27/25 and timed 4 PM showed resident #1 called resident #2 an asshole and resident #2 threw a cup of juice on resident #1.2. Review of the state survey agency incident database showed the incident was reported on 9/30/25 at 8:12 AM, 3 days after the incident occurred.3. Interview with facility investigator on 10/15/25 at 12:46 PM confirmed the incident was not reported timely. She revealed the incident occurred on a Saturday and at that time, they did not have any staff members who had access to the incident database that worked on the weekends. 4. Review of the facility policy titled Prevention of Resident Abuse, neglect, and Exploitation dated 5/14/25 showed .3. WLRC staff will report the allegation to the Wyoming Healthcare Licensing 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 · Dcited before2025-01-24 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 provide a written notice of transfer for 1 of 2 sample residents (#4) reviewed for facility-initiated transfers. The findings were: 1. Review of a 12/16/24 nurse progress note showed resident #4 was transferred to the hospital for an acute change of condition. Further review showed no evidence the facility issued a written transfer notice to the resident or the resident's representative. 2. Interview with the social services director on 1/24/25 at 10:51 AM revealed she was unable to locate the transfer notice. 3. Review of the 10/28/24 Transfer or Discharge; notice of; Appealing and Emergency Discharge policy showed .When a resident is temporarily transferred on an emergency basis to an acute care facility, the Social Worker, designee, or Nurse will provide verbal confirmation of transfer to the resident and family member or legal representative immediately or as soon as practicable. The resident and/or representative will also be notified by the Social Worker or designee in…
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 before2025-01-24 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to provide written information on the bed-hold policy for 1 of 2 sample residents (#4) reviewed for facility-initiated transfers. The findings were: 1. Review of a 12/16/24 nurse progress note showed resident #4 was transferred to the hospital for an acute change of condition. Further review showed no evidence the facility issued written information on the bed-hold policy to the resident or the resident's representative at the time of the hospitalization. 2. Interview with the social services director on 1/24/25 at 10:51 AM revealed she was unable to locate the bed-hold notice. 3. Review of the 9/24/24 Bed Hold and Return policy showed .a. Upon admission and prior to any transfer, residents and/or their representatives will be provided written information regarding State and facility bed hold policies, which address holding a resident's bed during periods of absence (hospitalization or therapeutic leave) .
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-24 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to arrange for specialized services to meet the resident's needs as identified on the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II for 1 of 2 sample residents (#9) reviewed. The findings were: 1. Review of the 8/8/24 annual MDS assessment showed resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an inpatient psychiatric hospital. The resident was coded as having been evaluated by a Level II PASARR and determined to have a serious mental illness. The resident had a BIMS score of 3 out 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment, with inattention and disorganized thinking. In addition, the resident had diagnoses which included anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar, and psychotic disorder. Review of the 1/13/23 PASARR Level II Determination Summary Report showed the resident met the state definition of mental illness and recommended rehabilitative services to be provided in the nursing facility to include a minimum of…
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 · D2025-01-24 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop 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, policy and procedure review, and review of CDC immunization recommendations, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered pneumococcal immunizations based on CDC recommendations for 1 of 5 sample residents (#3) reviewed for immunizations. The findings were: 1. Review of the 10/21/24 quarterly MDS assessment showed resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was [AGE] years old. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of Section O of the 10/21/24 quarterly MDS assessment showed the resident's pneumococcal vaccine was not up-to-date and had not been offered. b. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence the resident had been previously vaccinated. c. Interview with the DON on 1/24/25 at 12:47 PM confirmed the resident had not been offered the vaccine. 2. Review of the 4/5/22 Vaccination of Residents policy showed All residents will be offered vaccines that aid in preventing infectious disease unless the vaccine…
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 · F2023-10-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, review of policy and procedures, and 2022 FDA Food Code review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary environment in 2 of 2 food preparation areas (main kitchen, Sunflower cottage). The census was 8. The findings were: 1. Observation in the main kitchen on 10/25/23 at 11:03 AM showed walk-in freezer #2 had a sign posted on the door which said floors may be icy. Continued observation showed ice was built up on the floor, ceiling, and fans throughout the freezer, including on walk ways. 2. Observation on 10/25/23 at 11:05 AM showed the [NAME] dual oven #1 had dirt, grease, debris, and dead flies on the top. Further observation showed 4 additional oven racks were stored on top of the oven. 3. Observation on 10/25/23 11:09 AM showed the [NAME] dual oven #2 had dirt, grease, debris, and dead flies on the top. Further observation showed 3 additional oven racks were stored on top of the oven and the oven was in use. Interview with kitchen staff member #1 confirmed the oven was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-26 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — patternProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident fund account review, staff interview, and facility investigation review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from misappropriation of resident property by a staff member for 5 of 9 sample residents (#2, #3, #4, #5, #6). Corrective measures were implemented by the facility prior to the survey and compliance was determined to be met on 9/1/23. The findings were: 1. Review of a facility incident report dated 7/12/23 showed accounting staff identified several receipts for resident item purchases they determined were questionable. The incident report showed all the receipts were provided for residents #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 by CNA #1. An investigation was initiated and the CNA was placed on leave pending the investigation. The following concerns were identified: a. The incident report showed the facility interviewed the CNA on 7/14/23 at 9:30 AM and the CNA admitted she took money intended for resident purchases and generated the receipts on a computer in her office. The incident report review showed the CNA admitted to taking approximately…
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 · Ecited before2023-10-26 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement 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 related to the use of psychotropic medications for 3 of 5 sample residents (#1, #2, #8) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings were: 1. Review of the significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #1 had diagnoses which included cerebrovascular attack, transient ischemic attack, or stroke, non-Alzheimer's dementia, seizure disorder, traumatic brain injury, and a psychotic disorder other than schizophrenia, physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others which occurred on 1 to 3 days during the look-back period, and verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others which occurred on 1 to 3 days during the look-back period. Further review showed the resident received antipsychotic medication on an as needed basis since the prior assessment and a gradual dose reduction was attempted on 6/12/23. Review of the physician's orders showed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-13 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement 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
2. Review of physician orders for October 2022 showed resident #53 had orders for quetiapine (anti-psychotic) 125 mg via g-tube (gastrostomy tube, a type of feeding tube) every day at bedtime for major depressive disorder and unspecified intracranial injury with loss of consciousness, and escitalopram (anti-depressant) 20 mg by mouth every day in the morning for major depressive disorder. Further review showed the resident had diagnoses which included intracranial injury with loss of consciousness, major depressive disorder, epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with complex partial seizures, and dysphagia. Review of the care plan last revised 7/11/22 showed problems which included Behavioral Symptoms: [Resident] has displayed disruptive verbal aggression towards residents and staff. [Resident] has displayed disruptive physical behavior in banging on tables and other objects.[Resident] has displayed frustration by removing [his/her] feeding tube because [s/he] cannot eat orally. Interventions included gently remind [resident] that screaming/ cursing is not appropriate. Record behaviors…
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 before2022-10-13 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer for 1 of 1 sample residents (#57) reviewed for facility-initiated transfers. The findings were: 1. Review of the medical record showed resident #57 was transferred to the hospital on 9/11/22. Further review showed no evidence the facility issued a written transfer notice to the resident or the resident's representative. 2. Interview with the administrator and DON on 10/13/22 at 9:41 AM confirmed the facility did not send written transfer notices to the resident or resident's representative. 3. Review of the policy titled Transfer or Discharge; Notice of; Appealing and Emergency Discharge dated 3/31/22 showed .Emergency Discharge or Transfer .When a resident is temporarily transferred on an emergency basis to an acute care facility the Nurse or Social Worker will provide an Immediate Notice of Transfer or Discharge to the resident and family member or legal representative as soon as practicable .
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-10-13 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 provide a written notice of the bed-hold policy for 1 of 1 sample residents (#57) reviewed for facility-initiated transfers. The findings were: 1. Review of the medical record showed resident #57 was transferred to the hospital on 9/11/22. Further review showed no evidence the facility issued a written notice of the bed-hold policy to the resident or the resident's representative. 2. Interview with the administrator and DON on 10/13/22 at 9:41 AM confirmed the facility did not send a written notice of the bed-hold policy to the resident or resident's representative. 3. Review of the facility policy titled Bed Hold and Return dated 3/31/22 showed .1 .a. When hospital transfers occur, the Social Worker (or nurse if Social Worker is unavailable) will provide the resident and/or resident representative a copy of the bed-hold form. b. For an emergency hospital transfer, a copy of the bed-hold form will be sent with the resident and a copy for the resident representative will be sent…
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 before2022-10-13 · 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
2. Interview with the DON on 10/13/22 at 9:54 AM revealed she expected staff to perform hand hygiene upon entering a resident room and before exiting the room. In addition, staff should prepare supplies prior to the start of care and should don clean gloves after coming in contact with soiled items, prior to touching clean items. Further interview revealed if she observed staff perform incontinence care and touch clean items prior to removing their soiled gloves, she would assign additional education for the staff member to complete. 3. Review of the policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene dated 4/1/22 showed .6. Wash hands with soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: a. When hands are visibly soiled; and b. After contact with a resident with infectious diarrhea including, but not limited to infections caused by norovirus, salmonella, shigella, and C. Difficile. 7. Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: .b. before 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.
- No harm found · Ccited before2025-01-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to conduct an annual review of its infection prevention and control program (IPCP). The census was 13. The findings were: 1. Review of the facility's IPCP policies showed the following concerns: a. The Antibiotic Stewardship policy showed it was approved on 3/11/22 with no evidence the policy had been subsequently reviewed. b. The Written Exposure Control Plan & Health Outbreak Guidelines policy was approved on 4/5/22 with no evidence the policy had been subsequently reviewed. c. The Vaccination of Residents policy was approved on 4/5/22 with no evidence the policy had been subsequently reviewed. d. The Infection Prevention and Control policy was approved on 5/18/23 with no evidence the policy had been subsequently reviewed. 2. Interview with the DON on 1/24/25 at 12:47 PM confirmed the IPCP policies had not been reviewed annually as required.
“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
$50,980 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $50,980 — penalty dated 2025-10-15
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-11-15 for 14 days
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; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 11/27/2022 |
| JONES, RACHEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/27/2022 |
| LATHEM, RAGEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| VASQUEZ, KELLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/27/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 4 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 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 535058. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-24, 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.