Thermopolis Rehabilitation and Wellness
1210 Canyon Hills Rd, Thermopolis, WY 82443 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (307) 864-5591 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0610) — most recent Mar 2024
- 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
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $27,072 in federal fines (most recent 2024-03-06)
- nursing-staff turnover (73%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 1 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 | 23.5% | 16.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.1% | 5.9% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 3.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.5% | 6.5% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.6% | 4.7% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.6% | 15.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.3% | 15.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.0% | 4.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.6% | 22.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.5% | 21.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 77.3% | 77.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.5% | 18.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.1% | 16.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.05 | 1.29 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.51 | 2.27 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
34.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 40.0% 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 35 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 34% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 34.3%CMS range 25.0–50.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.6–16.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 40.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 28.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 34.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 81.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 | 82.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 4.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.8%CMS range 4.5–14.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 38.7 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 21 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.454 is at or above 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.61 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 73% is well above 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-03-06 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of staffing schedules, review of the facility grievance log, and review of policy and procedure, the facility failed to respond to an allegation of abuse and protect the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse by a staff member for 1 of 1 sample resident (#1) reviewed. This failure resulted in a delay in an investigation which left the residents unprotected, and a determination of immediate jeopardy. The census was 28. The findings were: 1. Review of a grievance form, provided by staff #1 and written by CNA #1, showed I witnessed [CNA #2] tell [the resident] [s/he] smelled wrong and [s/he] needed to come with him. [The resident] told him [his/her] pants were dry and was refusing. He leaned toward (sic) and yelled loudly at [the resident] to 'Stop I don't have to listen to this Get up!' [The resident] said no and he grabbed [the resident's] left hand and tried to pull [the resident] out of the chair. At that time, CNA #1 stepped in and told CNA #2 he would take over the situation. The grievance form showed the incident occurred…
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 before2024-03-06 · 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 interview, facility grievance log review, policy and procedure review, and State Survey Agency incident database review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse by a staff member for 1 of 3 sample residents (#1) reviewed for abuse. This failure resulted in actual harm to resident #1 who experienced verbal abuse a reasonable person would have found humiliating, intimidating, demeaning, and degrading. The findings were: 1. Review of the 12/13/23 quarterly MDS assessment showed resident #1 had a mood score of 00 and did not exhibit any behaviors, wandering, or rejection of care during the 7-day look-back period. Further review showed the resident was frequently incontinent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel. Review of the resident's care plan showed special instructions to document every shift if the resident had an increase in confusion episodes, escalations in voice, perseverations, or changes in mood or behavior. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of a grievance form, provided…
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 before2023-08-22 · 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 observation, medical record review, staff interview, review of facility incident reports and investigations, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by a resident for 1 of 5 residents (#1) reviewed for abuse. This failure resulted in harm to resident #1, who sustained facial bruising after being struck by another resident. The findings were: Review of the 7/10/23 annual MDS assessment for resident #1 showed the resident was rarely/never understood, wandered daily during the lookback period, and walked with a walker with staff supervision. The resident had diagnoses of arthritis, and Alzheimer's disease. The resident did not take anticoagulants but did take antipsychotic medication during the last 7 days of the MDS look back period. The resident was not coded as having behaviors directed towards others. Review of the 8/1/23 quarterly MDS assessment for resident #2 showed diagnoses which included non-Alzheimer's dementia and diabetes mellitus. The resident had severely impaired cognitive skills, had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, state survey agency incident database review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to accurately and timely report allegations of abuse for 1 of 13 sample residents (#1) reviewed for reportable allegations. The findings were:1. Review of a progress note for resident #1 dated 1/3/26 and timed 3:26 PM showed This nurse was sitting in the dining room with residents. [resident #1] was walking around calmly as normal. [S/He] got close to another resident, and without any queue, wound back with a clenched fist and punched a sitting resident in the face. Resident was immediately redirected and didn't seem to recall any of the situation seconds prior. Resident was immediately removed from situation, and placed on one on one. Resident has no recollection of event so only intervention is one on one at this time . 2. Review of an Allegation of Resident to Resident Abuse for resident #2 dated 1/3/26 and timed 3 PM showed Resident was sitting in dining room when another resident punched [him/her] in the face. Resident did nothing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-20 · 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 observation, staff interview, medical record review, and manufacturer's instruction review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate use of mechanical lifts during 1 random observation of mechanical lift transfers for a sample resident #3. The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #3 had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and diagnoses which included heart failure, morbid obesity, anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Further review showed the resident was dependent on staff for chair/bed-to-chair transfer. Review of the care plan last revised on 8/15/2025 showed the resident had an ADL function decline related to reduced mobility due to his/her morbid obesity, weakness, and chronic health conditions, and used a mechanical lift for transfers. The following concerns were identified:a. Observation on 11/19/25 at 3:20 PM showed two unidentified CNA's, and RN #1 entered the resident's room 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 · D2025-11-20 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 11 sampled residents (#40). The findings were: 1. Review of the 11/14/25 admission MDS assessment showed resident #40 had a BIMS of 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and diagnoses which included heart failure, atrial fibrillation. hypertension, presence of cardiac pacemaker, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia. Further review showed the resident received a vasopressor medication, midodrine, which was administered based on blood pressure parameters. Review of the physician orders dated 11/14/25 showed the resident received midodrine 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth three times daily with meals for hypotension. The following concerns were identified.a. Review of the physician orders dated 11/14/25 showed May stop midodrine if blood pressure above 110.b. Review of the medication administration record showed the resident's blood pressure prior to his/her scheduled noon dose of midodrine administration on 11/16/25 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure effective infection prevention practices were implemented during one random observation of linen transportation. The findings were: 1. Observation on 11/17/2025 at 2:25 PM showed RN #3 walked down the East hall with unbagged soiled linen in her hands and transported them to the soiled laundry bin. 2. Interview with the infection prevention coordinator and NHA on 11/20/25 at 11:35 AM revealed soiled linen should be bagged before being removed from rooms and transported to the soiled laundry bin. 3. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention standards of practice titled Laundry and Bedding, last revised 1/08/24, showed soiled laundry should be bagged prior to transporting to the soiled linen room. 4. Review of the facility policy titled Infection Control Policies and Practices, last revised 5/30/23, showed .6. The Executive Director or Governing Board, through the QAPI and infection control committees, have adopted our infection control policies and practices, as…
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 · D2025-10-23 · 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, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure physician notification of a resident change in condition for 1 of 4 sample residents (#1) reviewed for a change of condition. The findings were:1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #1 had a mental status that was not assessed and diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The following concerns were identified:a. Review of the medication administration record for September 2025 showed the resident received insulin degludec, blood sugar check twice per day, Januvia 100 mg daily, and metformin 100 mg twice per day for diabetes mellitus which were all discontinued on 9/9/25. b. Review of a progress dated 9/7/25 and timed 11:53 PM showed Pt. [patient] observed slumped in recliner. Diaphoretic with AMS [altered mental status]. Unable to follow simple commands. VS [vital signs] 100F [Fahrenheit], 88 FSBS [fingerstick blood sugar], 99/47BP [blood…
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 · D2025-10-23 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure residents receive quality of care and treatment to meet the resident's mental, physical, and psychosocial needs for 1 of 4 sample residents (#1) reviewed for diabetic treatment. The findings were:1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #1 had a mental status that was not assessed and diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The following concerns were identified:a. Review of an admission physician note dated 6/17/25 showed the resident had type 2 diabetes mellitus and the assessment/plan included a glucose monitor to his/her left arm to preventfinger stick blood sugar monitoring 3 times per day.b. Review of the medication administration record for September 2025 showed the resident received insulin degludec, blood sugar check twice per day, Januvia 100 mg daily, and metformin 100 mg twice per day for diabetes mellitus which were all…
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 · D2025-07-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 record review, resident representative and staff interview and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality for 1 of 3 sample residents (#1) reviewed for diagnostic service orders. The findings were: 1. Review of the re-entry MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #1 had severely impaired cognitive skills, did not ambulate, and required substantial/maximal assistance for transfers. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included presence of left artificial hip joint, difficulty in walking, and neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of a progress note dated 6/6/25 and timed 2:39 AM showed .PT is seeing resident and has requested staff to see about getting an x-ray to the left hip d/t very tight tension and limited ROM. Resident will work on improving LLE strength and ROM for glider transfers . b. Review of a progress note dated 6/7/25 and timed 2:46 AM showed .PT is seeing resident and has requested staff 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 · D2025-07-07 · tag F0776 — isolatedProvide timely, approved x-ray services, or have an agreement with an approved provider to obtain them.
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 record review, resident representative and staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to meet the needs of residents with regard to the quality and/or timeliness of providing radiology or other diagnostic services for 1 of 3 sample residents (#1) reviewed for diagnostic service orders. The findings were: 1. Review of the re-entry MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #1 had severely impaired cognitive skills, did not ambulate, and required substantial/maximal assistance for transfers. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included presence of left artificial hip joint, difficulty in walking, and neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of a progress note dated 6/6/25 and timed 2:39 AM showed .PT is seeing resident and has requested staff to see about getting an x-ray to the left hip d/t very tight tension and limited ROM. Resident will work on improving LLE strength and ROM for glider transfers . b. Review of a progress note…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-27 · 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, and review of facility policies and CDC immunization recommendations, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered pneumococcal immunizations based on CDC recommendations for 1 of 5 sample residents (#11) reviewed for immunizations. The findings were: 1. Review of the medical record showed resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old. Review of the 9/21/23 initial and 3/17/24 quarterly MDS assessments showed the resident was not up to date on pneumococcal immunizations. The reason was not offered. Further review of the medical record showed the resident received the following pneumococcal vaccines: PPSV23 on 6/10/2003 and PPSV23 on 7/18/2008. There lacked evidence the resident was offered a pneumococcal immunization since admission. 2. During an interview on 6/27/23 at 1:39 PM the DON and DDCO stated the resident had received two doses of PPSV23 and confirmed there lacked evidence to show the resident was offered a pneumococcal vaccine since…
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 · D2023-04-20 · 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a written notice of transfer was provided to the resident or resident's representative for 2 of 2 sample residents (#36, #41) who were hospitalized . The findings were: 1. Review of progress notes showed resident #36 was transferred to the hospital on 4/11/23. The resident returned to the facility on 4/17/23. Review of the medical record showed a copy of a Facility notice of Discharge form that was e-mailed to the Ombudsman on 4/13/23. However, there lacked evidence the resident or resident's representative received written notice of the transfer. 2. Review of progress notes showed on 3/20/23 resident #41 was transferred to the emergency room. A progress note dated 3/21/23 showed the resident was admitted to the hospital, and would be discharged to hospice care in another city. Review of the medical record showed a copy of a Facility notice of Discharge form that was e-mailed to the Ombudsman on 3/23/23. However, there lacked evidence the resident or resident's representative received written notice 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 · D2023-04-20 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolatedProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such 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, medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure ostomy care was provided according to the care plan for 1 of 1 residents with an ostomy (#24). The findings were: 1. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #24 entered the facility on 10/18/22 and had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Bowel elimination showed the resident had an ostomy. The diagnoses included personal history of malignant neoplasm of large intestine, diabetes mellitus, and muscle weakness. Review of the current care plan showed and intervention last revised on 12/2/22: Monitor Colostomy every shift and as needed; dressing change per protocol. Provide Colostomy care and monitor for any skin breakdown, and an intervention last revised on 10/27/22: [Resident name] has an alteration in gastro-intestinal status r/t [related to] Colostomy (history of Colon Cancer) and GERD. [Resident name] will remain free from discomfort,…
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 · D2023-04-20 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received a gradual dose reduction (GDR), unless contraindicated, for psychotropic medication for 1 of 5 sample residents (#5) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings were: 1. Review of the 2/25/23 quarterly MDS assessment showed resident #5 had diagnoses that included non-Alzheimer's dementia and anxiety disorder. Further, the resident received an antipsychotic on 7 days during the look-back period and a GDR was not attempted, nor did the physician document a contraindication. Review of physician orders showed the resident received Ziprasidone HCl (antipsychotic, brand name Geodon) 60 mg once per day plus 40 mg once per day since 7/26/22. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of the medical record showed no evidence a GDR of the Ziprasidone HCL was attempted. b. Review of a physician's progress note dated 2/14/23 showed Pharmacy review performed with recommendation GDR Geodon. The patient has been decreased to 40 mg BID [twice per day] in the last several days. However,…
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 · D2023-04-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications for resident use were not expired in 1 of 3 medication storage units ( secure unit medication cart). The findings were: 1. Observation on [DATE] at 2:44 PM of the secure unit medication cart with LPN #1 showed 54 tablets of hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg tablets had expired 3/2023. Interview with the LPN at that time confirmed the medication was for resident use and expired. 2. Interview with the DON on [DATE] at 2:54 PM revealed it was the expectation for the nurses to check the expiration date and dispose of the medication if expired. 3. Interview with the assistant executive director on [DATE] at 4:51 PM revealed the facility did not have a policy related to prescription medication expirations.
“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
$27,072 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $17,761 — penalty dated 2024-03-06
- $9,311 — penalty dated 2023-08-22
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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 43; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MORRISON, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/30/2025 |
| SIMMONS, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/30/2025 |
| WINTERHOLLER, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/30/2025 |
| CONNELL, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| COUVE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| COUVE HEALTHCARE CONSULTING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| PACIFIC NORTHWEST OPCO MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| THERMOPOLIS SNF OPERATIONS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| SPIELMAN, SHIMON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| STANNARD, ANDREA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| WEYER, JASON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| YENOWITZ, YITZCHOK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2025 |
| THERMOPOLIS SNF REALTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/15/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 13 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.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $81K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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
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 535051. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-20, 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.