Laramie Health and Rehabilitation

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

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.

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.

48.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 102 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 53.9% 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 65 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 28% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 105 beds and averages 51.8 residents a day — about 49% occupied, or roughly 53 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.89 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.60 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 2.40 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.09 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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.

29 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 16 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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 staff interviews, medical record review, and facility investigation and policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by other residents for 1 of 5 sample residents (#3) reviewed for allegations of abuse and neglect, which resulted in actual harm to resident #3. The findings were:The facility had implemented corrective action prior to the survey and was determined to be in substantial compliance as of 4/9/26.1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed the BIMS assessment for resident #3 wasn't able to be completed which indicated severe cognitive impairment, and included diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson's disease, and dementia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #11 had a staff assessment of mental status which indicated severe cognitive impairment for daily decision making, and included diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia with severe agitation, and anxiety. Review…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-22 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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 interview, and review of incident and quality improvement documentation, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse by other residents for 2 of 10 sample residents (#2, #5), resulting in harm to resident #5 who suffered a fracture. The findings were: 1. Review of the 2/25/24 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment showed resident #2 (victim) had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15 (significant cognitive impairment). The diagnoses included dementia, COPD, gout, pain and skin cancer. 2. Review of the 4/3/24 comprehensive MDS assessment showed resident #5 (victim) had a BIMS score of 9 out of 15 (moderate cognitive impairment) and diagnoses including diabetes, hypertension and respiratory failure. 3. Review of the 3/26/24 admission MDS assessment showed resident #1 (perpetrator) had a BIMS score of 4 out of 15 (significant cognitive impairment). The diagnoses included dementia, stroke with right sided weakness, and diabetes. 4. Review of an incident report dated 4/26/24 showed 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Actual harm · Gcited before2023-07-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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 resident representative and staff interview, medical record review, facility incident investigation review, facility performance improvement plan review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from sexual abuse by a resident for 1 of 3 sample residents (#43). This failure resulted in harm to resident #43 who experienced sexual abuse a reasonable person would have found humiliating, intimidating, demeaning, and degrading. The facility implemented corrective action prior to the survey and was determined to be in substantial compliance as of 7/19/23. The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #43 had short-term and long-term memory problems and diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack or stroke, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. Further review showed the resident required extensive physical assistance of 1 person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing,…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · F2026-06-03 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespread
  Provide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
  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, review of the resident council notes, resident interview, staff interview, review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE], PBJ staffing data report review, review of worked staff schedule 10/1/25 through 12/21/25, and review of the Declaration of Nursing Staffing sheets, the facility failed to ensure adequate staff were provided to meet the needs of the residents. The findings were: Review of the facility assessment with a completion date of 12/11/2025 showed for short stay, the average number of residents admitted within past 6 months was 48. The average number discharged within the past 6 months was 45. The long-stay average number of residents admitted within the past 6 months was 29. The average number of residents discharged within the past 6 months was 37. Further review showed the Hours Per a Resident Days (HPRD) Day - RN 32, LPN 54, CNA/STNA 75, Nights - RN 32, LPN 54, CNA/STNA 75. Interview with the DON on 6/3/26 at 3:31 PM revealed when she staffs the schedule it was 2 day shift…

  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.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-03 · tag F0628 — pattern
  Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a notice of transfer/discharge prior to a facility-initiated hospital transfer for 4 of 5 sample residents (#6, #23, #30, #31). The findings were: 1. Review of the medical record showed resident #6 was transferred to the hospital on 3/19/26. Further review showed no evidence the facility had issued a written transfer/discharge notice to the resident and/or the resident representative2. Review of the medical record showed resident #23 was transferred to the hospital on 2/10/26. Further review showed no evidence the facility had issued a written transfer/discharge notice to the resident and/or the resident representative.3. Review of the medical record showed resident #30 was transferred to the hospital on 2/27/26. Further review showed no evidence the facility had issued a written transfer/discharge notice to the resident and/or the resident representative.4. Review of the medical record showed resident #31 was transferred to the hospital on 5/21/26 and 5/24/26. Further review showed no…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-03 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure bathing was performed per the plan of care for 2 of 3 residents (#31, #59) reviewed for bathing. The findings were:1. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #31 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the care plan last revised on 4/13/26 showed the resident required maximum assistance from staff for bathing. Review of the care plan last revised on 5/26/26 showed Bathing Schedule/Frequency: prior to hospitalization [s/he] showered every other day. The following concerns were identified:a. Observation on 5/31/26 at 4:24 PM showed the resident wore a hospital gown and wrap around brief, was in bed, and hair appeared greasy and uncombed.b. Review of the bathing log provided by the DON showed the resident preferred bathing on Tuesday and Friday afternoons, and had been provided with a bed bath on 5/6, 5/18, and 5/26. The resident refused on 5/12, and activity did not occur on 5/15 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-03 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — pattern
  Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, resident, staff, and representative interviews, medical record review, and activity calendar review, the facility failed to ensure individual activities of preference were provided to 4 or 4 sample residents (#4, #8, #23, #30) , and weekend activities were provided to 5 of 5 sample residents (#4, #8, #23, #30, #40) reviewed for activities. This was verified at the confidential resident council meeting. The findings were: Regarding activities of preference 1. Review of the care plan last revised 10/6/25 showed resident #4 had interventions for psychosocial well-being and one-to-one. The following concerns were identified: a. Interview with the resident on 6/1/26 at 10:28 AM revealed the activities were for young kids and not old adults, therefore s/he did not participate. S/he did participate in resident council when s/he was told about it. b. Interview with the Social Worker on 6/2/26 at 3:09 PM revealed the resident had not participated in activities since s/he was admitted to the facility. She stated the resident would occasionally come out of his/her room…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-03 · tag F0800 — pattern
  Provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview and review of meeting notes and grievance documentation, the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration resident preferences. The census was 58. The findings were: 1. Observation on 5/31/26 at 2 PM showed resident lunch meal trays were being delivered. 2. Interview with resident #4 on 6/1/26 10:28 AM revealed that the food that was delivered was not always what was listed on the menu, at times s/he could not tell what the food had been, the temperature could be extreme hot and cold, and most times portions were small. 3. Interview with resident #41 on 6/1/26 at 10:07 AM revealed that the food is a 3/10, and included a lot of canned veggies and potato or rice. In addition, the food tasted bland and boring, and the same food was repeated frequently. The resident also reported s/he was not always able to identify the food by looking at it or tasting it. 4. Interview with resident #40 on…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0577 — isolated
  Allow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure recertification and complaint survey reports, and any plans of correction, during the 3 preceding years, were available for any individual to review upon request. The findings were: 1. Observation on 5/31/26 at 3:20 PM showed the State Survey binder had a document stating State Surveys Public Record 1 year. The other documentation dated on 2/24/26 was the iQIES (Internet Quality Improvement and Evaluation System) ePOC (Electronic Plan of Correction), and a complaint survey 2567 dated on 2/12/26. Inside of front binder was a piece of tape showing updated 2/26/26. There was no notice of prior surveys. Further observation showed above the binder holder on the wall was a framed notice showing State Surveys & Plan of Corrections, Three years of Results. 2. Interview with the administrator on 6/1/26 at 9:00 AM revealed she was unaware that the last standard survey needed to be posted in the binder as well.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on resident interview, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly obtain grievances and maintain evidence demonstrating the appropriate action and issuance of the grievance decision for 4 of 8 residents (#4,#40,#47,#15) reviewed for grievances. The findings were: 1. Interview with resident #4 on 6/1/26 at 10:28 AM revealed the resident had asked staff multiple times to replace a cloth recliner that had stuffing falling out of the armrest. S/he also had been told by the maintenance director that his/her personal large-screen TV had been hit by lightning, and it was replaced with a tiny TV. The large TV had also been removed from his/her room by maintenance and s/he does not know what happened to it. Further interview revealed s/he had reported clothing and a blanket were missing, but s/he did not fill out a grievance because nothing was done when s/he filled them out.a. Observation on 6/1/26 at 10:28 AM showed a recliner in the resident's room had a torn right arm and exposed stuffing. Further observation showed one small TV, and no evidence of a large…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview, and review of investigation documentation, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation of an allegation of physical abuse for 1 of 5 sample residents (#47). The findings were: 1. Review of the facility's investigation documentation showed an allegation of physical abuse involving residents #47 and #30 was reported on 5/14/26. The facility did investigate and placed a 1:1 on the perpetrator right away. The perpetrator room was changed to a different hall. The facility did interview others, and staff. The facility did do abuse education with staff. However, the facility failed to assess the victim right away and waited 2 days later to assess for injuries. 2. Review of the MDS quarterly assessment dated [DATE] for resident #47 (victim) showed a BIMS score of 12 out of 15 (moderate cognitively impaired). The resident did have verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others. S/he had diagnosis including medically complex conditions, type 2 diabetes mellitus,…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  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 ensure the MDS assessment was accurate in reflecting the resident's status for 1 of 22 sample residents (#10). The findings were:1. Review of the 5/4/26 quarterly MDS assessment showed resident #10 had a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 (cognitively intact), an indwelling catheter and an ostomy. 2. Observation on 5/31/26 at 3:39 PM showed resident #10 sitting in the resident's room a urinary foley catheter tubing and catheter collection bag was noted. Interview with the resident at that time revealed the staff took care of the catheter and collection bag. S/he revealed s/he only had the urinary catheter. 3. Review of the medical record for resident #10 showed the medical history included neurogenic bladder, and obstructive a reflux uropathy. Further review showed the resident's care plan showed the care for an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of the physicians' orders showed Suprapubic catheter sized 16 F (French) balloon: 10cc (cubic centimeter), as needed damage, occlusion, or…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0732 — isolated
  Post nurse staffing information every day.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the daily staff posting data was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents, staff, and visitors for 1 of 4 days (Sunday). The findings were: Observation on 5/31/26 at 3:18 PM showed there was no daily staff data sheet posted. Interview with the DON on 5/31/26 at 4:45 PM revealed the facility failed to post the daily staff posting data sheet for the day.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

$35,880 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $35,880 — penalty dated 2024-05-22

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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to EVERGREEN HEALTHCARE GROUP — 44 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.

6 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.

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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