New Horizons Care Center
1111 Lane 12, Lovell, WY 82431 · Government - Hospital district · 85 certified beds · (307) 548-5200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 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 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $7,521 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-28)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit 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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — 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 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 | 6.6% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 5.9% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 2.2% | 3.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.6% | 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 | 9.7% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.7% | 15.3% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.4% | 15.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 94.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 4.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.8% | 22.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.4% | 21.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.30 | 1.29 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.12 | 2.27 | 1.80 | worse |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.02 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 1% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 85 beds and averages 59.8 residents a day — about 70% occupied, or roughly 25 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 3.60 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.40 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.76 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.95 to 0.75 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, incident report review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be from physical abuse by a resident for 1 of 4 sample residents (#3) reviewed for abuse. This failure resulted in actual harm to resident #3 who suffered fractures. The findings were: 1.Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #3 had a BIMS score of 3 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment, and had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, and depression. Further review showed resident #3 (victim) was independent with mobility, including walking. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #2 (perpetrator) had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included Alzheimer's dementia, and anxiety disorder. Further review showed resident #2 was independent with mobility, including walking. Review of the resident's behavioral care plan dated 10/2/25 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 before2024-08-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, resident representative and staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by a resident for 2 of 4 sample residents (#1, #3) reviewed for allegations of abuse. This failure resulted in actual harm to resident #1. The findings were: 1. Review of an incident dated 8/4/24 showed resident #2 punched resident #1 in the mouth with his/her fist. Further review showed resident #1 had a small cut and mild swelling. The following concerns were identified: a. Interview with RN #1 on 8/28/24 at 10:32 AM revealed resident #1 was demonstrating sundowners and was moving and straightening chairs. The RN revealed 2 residents near resident #1 asked the resident to leave the chairs alone and when s/he didn't, resident #2 stood up and popped resident #1 in the mouth. Further interview revealed resident #1 received an exterior abrasion, was upset, and was shocked. b. Interview with CNA #1 on 8/28/24 at 10:52 AM confirmed resident #1 was moving furniture and resident #2 punched 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, and staff and resident representative interview, the facility failed to notify the responsible party following a change of condition in 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed. The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment, and had diagnoses which included, Alzheimer's dementia, diabetes mellitus, and urinary incontinence. Further review showed the resident required staff assistance with bed mobility and personal cares. Review of a 7/30/25 Braden score assessment showed the resident was at severe risk for developing pressure ulcers. The following concerns were identified:a. Review of the nursing progress note dated 7/13/25 and timed 12:14 PM showed . There was a small opening on [his/her] coccyx. Wound was cleaned and a 4X4 Mepilex was applied.b. Review of the nursing progress note dated 7/14/25 and timed 12:23 PM showed . Spoke with wound care nurse. about residents coccyx wound. if worsening occurs to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, resident representative and staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to notify family of changes for 1 of 3 sample residents (#1). The findings were: 1. Review of the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #1 had a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, which indicated s/he had moderate cognitive impairment, and diagnoses which included cerebral infarction due to occlusion. Review of the facility incident review showed the resident had a fall during a transfer on 2/16/25. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of a progress note dated 2/18/25 and timed 3:30 AM showed the resident's representative called the facility on 2/17/25 at 7:40 PM to express a concern that the resident had a fall on 2/16/25 that was not reported to her, and the resident may have hurt [his/her] wrist. Further review showed that following the call the resident was assessed by the nurse and had no obvious open areas, no deformities or swelling, no apparent guarding 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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-09 · 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 and monitored for 6 of 6 sample residents (#2, #9, #36, #44, #45, #47) and failed to ensure PRN orders for psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days for 1 of 6 sample residents (#44) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #44 had a BIMS score of 5 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses which included Alzheimers/dementia with agitation and depression. The MDS showed the resident had a mood score of 0, which indicated no signs or symptoms of depression, and the resident exhibited behaviors such as verbal behavior directed at others and wandering. Further review showed the resident received antipsychotic medication and antidepressent medication during the look-back period. Review of the physician orders showed the resident received…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-09 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure residents right to request/refuse/discontinue treatment for 1 of 1 sample residents (#45) with a do not resuscitate (DNR) status. The findings were: 1. Review of the electronic medical record on 1/7/25 at 2:26 PM showed resident #45 had a DNR code status, however there was no evidence the resident elected the DNR code status. 2. Interview with the DON on 1/9/25 at 10 AM revealed the electronic medical record showed no sign of a declaration of code status. Further interview revealed the provider should have filled out the code status; however, it was not in the electronic medical record. 3. Review of the facility's policy DNR Policy updated 3/15/18 showed .1. At the time of admission the Social Services person or Charge Nurse shall determine if the resident has executed a Living Will or has a signed statement for DNR.5. The physician shall assume the responsibility for writing the DNR order by: a. Writing and dating the order on the Physician's order sheet b. 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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident and staff interview, medical record review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services to maintain good personal hygiene for 2 of 3 sample residents (#7, #33) reviewed for activities of daily living. The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #7 had a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and had diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or stroke and Parkinson's disease. Further review showed the resident required partial/moderate assistance with bathing and upper and lower body dressing. The following concerns were identified: a. Interview with the resident on 1/7/25 at 9:21 AM revealed s/he did not feel there was enough staff because s/he did not get showers regularly. b. Review of the bathing records for October, November, and December of 2024 and January of 2025 showed the resident went 6 days without a shower from…
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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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, medical record review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure an appropriate diagnoses and attempt removal of an indwelling urinary catheter for 1of 1 sample resident (#7). The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #7 had a BIMS score of 14 out 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and no genitourinary diagnoses except renal insufficiency, renal failure, or end-stage renal disease. Further review showed the resident was independent with toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and toilet transfer, was always continent of bowel, was not on a toileting program, and had an indwelling catheter placed. The following concerns were identified: a. Observation on 1/7/25 at 9:21 AM showed the resident was in his/her room and a catheter drainage bag was hanging on the side of the resident's trash can. b. Review of a hospital discharge note dated 6/13/24 showed the resident was discharged from 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 · D2024-08-28 · 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 resident representative and staff interview, grievance review, state survey agency incident database review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported for 1 of 4 sample residents (#3) reviewed for allegations for abuse. The findings were: 1. Interview with the resident representative for resident #3 on 8/27/24 at 6:02 PM revealed the resident's spouse reported a CNA had pushed the resident down onto a chair on 8/25/24; however, she did not think the facility believed the spouse. 2. Review of a Complaint/Grievance form dated 8/25/24 showed [Spouse of resident #3] said CNA pushed [resident] down to sit in chair. 2. Review of the state survey agency incident database showed no evidence an allegation of abuse was reported for resident #3 on or after 8/25/24. 3. Interview with CNA #4 on 8/27/24 at 6:21 PM revealed she was providing 1 to 1 care for resident #3 on 8/25/24. Further interview revealed the DON arrived at the facility and sent the CNA home due to an allegation of abuse; however, after the DON watched the camera…
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 before2024-08-28 · 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
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed and implemented for 2 of 4 sample residents (#1, #2) following resident to resident altercations. The findings were: 1. Review of an incident dated 8/4/24 showed resident #2 punched resident #1 in the mouth with his/her fist. Further review showed resident #1 had a small cut and mild swelling. Review of an incident dated 7/21/24 showed resident #3 walked up to resident #1, grabbed resident #1's face, and resident #1 slapped resident #3 in the face. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of the care plan for resident #1 last updated 7/1/24 showed no resident specific interventions related to altercations on 7/21/24 or 8/4/24. b. Review of the care plan for resident #2 last updated 7/20/24 showed no resident specific interventions related to aggression toward other residents or staff and no updated interventions related to the altercation on 8/4/24. 2. Interview with CNA #1 on 8/28/24 at 10:58 PM revealed resident #2 was kind 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 · D2023-10-19 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary which included a recapitulation of the resident's stay for 1 of 1 resident (#58) reviewed for discharge to another nursing home or swing bed. The findings were: 1. Review of the 9/13/23 discharge MDS assessment for resident #58 showed s/he had been discharged to Another nursing home or swing bed and a return to the facility was not anticipated. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of the resident's medical record showed a 9/13/23 Facility Transfer form had been completed which indicated the resident had been transferred to a swing bed. Further review of the medical record showed no evidence a discharge summary had been completed. Interview with the DON on 10/17/23 at 5:19 PM confirmed the discharge summary had not been completed.
- Potential for harm · E2022-08-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure food temperatures were maintained at an acceptable temperature for 1 of 3 units (Pod 2). The findings were: Observation on 8/17/22 at 11 AM showed covered food was in the steamer table ready for staff to plate. Further observation showed plated food was delivered to Pod 2 at 12 PM. At 12:15 PM one of the last trays was served to the residents. The last tray of food was checked by the dietary manager. The meat temperature was measured at 102 Fahrenheit (F) and the vegetables at 120 degrees F. Interview at that time with the dietary manager confirmed the temperatures were lower than they should be. Further, she stated the cook takes the temperature of the food prior to serving the plates. The food temperature is not checked again after that initial check. Once the trays are loaded in the carts they go directly to the different pods. Once delivered to the pod, it is the nursing staff that serves the trays to the residents. Interview with resident #31 on 8/16/22 at 1:19 PM revealed…
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 before2022-08-18 · 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
Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of policy and procedures the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan or 1 of 6 residents (# 18) reviewed for behavior indicators. The findings were: 1. Review of the care plan for resident #18, dated 6/10/22, showed diagnoses of Alzheimer's dementia, history of cerebral vascular accident, and chronic left hip pain. Review of the progress note dated 7/9/22 at 11:44 PM showed [Res #18] and another resident wanting to go out outside after supper. Review of the progress note dated 7/12/22 at 6:24 PM showed Resident has attempted at least 5 times during 3p-7p shift to go out the patio doors. Resident has attempted to get on the elevator twice, stating [s/he] needed to go downstairs and outside to look for [her/his] phone. Review of the progress note dated 7/13/22 at 9:11 PM showed Resident wanting to go out on the patio or downstairs this evening; no extra staff to go with [her/him]. Complains to other residents which makes them angry also. Trying to get on elevator to get…
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 · B2023-10-19 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of the posted daily nurse staffing data and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the daily posted nurse staffing information included all required elements. The census was 58. The findings were: 1. Review of the posted daily nurse staffing information for the dates 8/6/23 through 10/15/23 showed the following concerns: a. Review of the daily nurse information postings failed to include the number of RNs, LPNs, or CNAs on duty for each shift. 2. Interview with the DON on 10/19/23 at 9:02 AM revealed the facility was not aware of the requirement and confirmed the information posted was incomplete.
“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
$7,521 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $7,521 — penalty dated 2024-08-28
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CONNELL, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| WINTERHOLLER, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2017 |
| CROSBY, BRETT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2004 |
| MATHEWS, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/01/2013 |
| MORRISON, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/15/2018 |
| SIMMONS, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2023 |
| NORTH BIG HORN HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/29/2007 |
| CALDWELL, TROY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/12/1999 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.
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 535030. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-09, 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.