4686 E Asbury Cir, Denver, CO 80222 · Denver County · (303) 756-1566
88 certified beds, about 83 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 065034 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 15, 2024, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Colorado average is 8.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 39 health citations since February 2022, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $9,636 in the last three years; the largest was $9,636, and the latest is dated October 15, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.93 hours per resident per day, against 3.72 across Colorado and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.47 of those hours.
44.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Colorado average 47.1%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 39 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the possible development and transmission of infectious diseases in four of four units. Specifically, the facility failed to:-Ensure staff performed hand hygiene before and after providing resident care; and,-Ensure staff followed enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) while providing direct resident care for residents who were identified as being on EBP.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's representative was informed of changes in condition for one (#1) of three residents out of 17 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to:-Inform Resident #1's physician-appointed healthcare proxy when the resident had a change in condition, including when the resident started on an antibiotic medication; and,-Return phone calls to Resident #1's healthcare proxy's voice messages requesting information about the resident's condition in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of verbal abuse involving one (#6) of seven residents of 17 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of verbal threats overhead by a family member between Resident #6 and Resident #15.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to protect residents from physical abuse for two (#2 and #3) of five residents reviewed for abuse out of five sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to protect Resident #2 and Resident #3 from physical abuse by Resident #1.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure money from personal funds accounts was managed accurately for four (#7, #17, #33 and #39) of four residents reviewed for personal funds accounts out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to notify Residents #7, #17, #33 and #39, who were Medicaid funded, or their legal representative, when the resident's personal funds account reached $200.00 less than the eligibility resource limit for one person.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#43, #51 and #66) of three residents with limited mobility reviewed for range of motion (ROM) received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to establish a consistent restorative nursing program within the facility to ensure Resident #43, Resident #51 and Resident #66 did not have a potential decline in activities of daily living (ADL).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of five percent (%) or greater. Specifically, the medication administration observation error rate was 14.63%, or six errors out of 41 opportunities for error.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were properly stored in accordance with accepted professional standards for two of three treatment carts and one of three medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure treatment carts were locked when unattended; and, -Ensure medication carts were locked when unattended.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine or emergency dental services as needed for three (#18, #32 and #51) of four residents reviewed for dental services out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure dental services were offered to Resident #18, Resident #32 and Resident #51.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the possible development and transmission of infectious diseases. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure housekeeping staff followed proper infection control procedures for cleaning resident rooms; -Ensure residents were assisted with hand hygiene prior to meals; -Ensure glucometers were cleaned appropriately following use; and, -Ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn appropriately and appropriate infection control procedures were followed during wound care for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were permitted to remain in the facility and not transfer or discharge for one (#76) of two residents out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide Resident #76 with an appropriate discharge process.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews the facility failed to permit a resident to return to the facility following a facility-initiated transfer to the hospital for one (#76) of two residents reviewed for discharge out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to reassess Resident #76's status at the time the resident sought to return to the facility after a facility-initiated transfer to the hospital, and directed the hospital to discharge the resident to a sister facility instead of allowing the resident to return to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the PASRR (preadmission screening and resident review) Level II determination and evaluation report into the assessment, care planning and transition of care for two (#65 and #43) of three residents reviewed out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to initiate therapy as recommended by the PASRR Level II in a timely manner for Resident #65 and Resident #43.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure services provided to residents met professional standards of quality for one (#15) of one resident out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #15's as needed (PRN) pain medications had physician ordered parameters related to the strength of the medications and the severity of the resident's pain level (on a pain scale of 1-10).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide the resident representative with the proper discharge notifications for one (#182) of two residents out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop and implement a collaborate discharge plan with Resident #182
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for one (#24) of four residents reviewed for assistance with ADLs out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #24's fingernails were trimmed and clean.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided services that meet professional standards for one (#51) of one resident out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #51's leg wraps for lymphedema (a chronic condition that causes swelling due to a buildup of lymph fluid in the body) were ordered in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision abilities for one (#18) of one resident out of 39 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to arrange optometry services timely for Resident #18.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#65) of two residents reviewed for accidents out of 39 sample residents received adequate supervision to decrease and/or prevent risk for accident hazards. Specifically, the facility failed to implement a plan of care that adequately addressed the risks posed to Resident #65 and other residents in the facility due to Resident #65's smoking habit and history of self-inflicted injury from fire.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#3) of one resident out of 39 sample residents were free of significant medication errors. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the insulin pen was primed prior to administration for Resident #3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. Specifically the facility failed to: -Ensure the surface disinfectant time was followed for proper disinfection; -Ensure resident rooms were cleaned and disinfected properly; -Ensure staff performed proper hand hygiene; and, -Ensure facility maintained water management program for Legionella.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure one (#39) out of five residents m reviewed was free from a significant medication error of 31 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #39 was administered an accurate dose of cholecalciferol (Vitamin D) medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#72) of three residents had the right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care out of 31 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Conduct care plan/conference meetings for Resident #72; and, -Ensure either the resident or the responsible party was involved in the care conferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of the resident's needs and preferences for two (#21 and #54) of five residents reviewed out of 31 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Follow the physical therapy discharge plan to install a pole in the resident's room for the purpose of assisting the Resident #21 with transferring; and, -Provide a Resident #54 with a call light option that was conducive to her abilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve a grievance for one (#60) of six residents reviewed for grievances out of 31 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to act on a report of a missing passport, driver's license/ID, and social security card for Resident #60.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that included measurable objectives needed to provide effective and person centered care for two ( #29 and #21) out of 31 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #29's bed height preference was on the comprehensive care plan; and, -Revise Resident #21's care plan to include intravenous (IV) administration of antibiotics after hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#61) of two residents reviewed for communication out of 31 sample residents were provided appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their abilities. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #61 had access to a whiteboard for his communication needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services to maintain the activities of daily living for two (#2 and 71) of five residents who required extensive assistance out of 31 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #2 and Resident #71 received consistent showers according to their preference and plan of care; and, -Ensure Resident #71 received regular nail care according to her preference and plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#40) out of 31 sample residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan. Specifically, the facility failed to investigate, determine origin and monitor a bruise to Resident #40's wrist.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#83, #187 and #24) of six out of 31 sample residents who required respiratory care were provided such care and services consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure a physician's order was obtained for Resident #83 and Resident #187 for use of supplemental oxygen; and, -Ensure Resident #24's supplemental oxygen was on correct order liter flow per physician's order
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessment, inspection and maintenance of a bed cane (fixed bed rail assistive device) was completed for one (#51) resident of three residents reviewed using bed cane for positioning out of 31 sample residents. Specifically, for Resident #51, the facility failed to: -Assess the resident for risk of entrapment prior to installing or using a bed cane/bed rail; -Obtain consent from resident; and, -Check bed rail/bed cane regularly for ongoing maintenance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medications for one of two medication storage rooms and one of three medication storage carts. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Discard prepared medications on the medication cart that had not been administered to residents; -Maintain medication storage room in a clean and orderly manner; and, -Discard medication that had expired.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#43 and #116) of four residents reviewed out of 30 sample residents were as free from accident hazards as possible. The facility failed to assess and implement interventions to prevent Residents #43 and #116 from falling. As a result, Resident #43's hospital records indicated a head cat scan was completed in comparison from 12/7/22 and 12/11/22 and revealed a head injury; and Resident #116 was not fully assessed after an unwitnessed fall for potential injuries. Resident #43 had a history of falls prior to initial admission to the facility on [DATE]. The facility was aware of the resident's fall risk upon admission. The resident's medical record revealed the resident had diagnoses of dementia and Parkinson's disease with increasing confusion, poor safety awareness, impulsivity and an unsteady gait. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was served and stored under sanitary conditions during meal services. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Offer, assist or encourage resident to perform hand hygiene prior to eating meals and after eating meals and handling and throwing away trash from the meal, in one of one dining rooms and two of three units; and, -Clean refrigerator used to store resident snacks and outside foods; date and label sandwiches for resident consumption and discard expired food items, in two of two unit refrigerators used for resident food.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interviews, staff interviews, and the tasting of the test tray, the facility failed to consistently serve food that was palatable and at the proper temperature. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident food was palatable in taste, texture, appearance, and temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews the facility failed to notify, make immediate notification to the resident representative when the resident had a significant change in condition requiring a need to alter treatment; initiate a resident transfer or discharge from the facility; or when the resident was involved in an accident with an injury or portent for an injury for two (#62 and #116) of three residents out of 30 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to immediately inform the resident representative(s): -For Resident #62 when the resident was transferred to the hospital for assessment and treatment of a medical illness; and, -For Resident #116 after a fall which could have resulted in an injury with the potential for a need for physician intervention. (Cross-Referenced to F689 failure to prevent a resident fall).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#42 and #117) of five residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, hygiene, dressing and grooming, out of 30 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide timely incontinent care and repositioning for Resident #42 and #117, who required staff assistance for bed mobility and incontinence care; and, -Provide Resident #42 positioning and set-up assistance for eating meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#15) of three residents with limited mobility reviewed for range of motion (ROM) received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain maximal mobility and services to prevent further decrease in ROM, out of 30 sample residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #15 received consistent restorative services for daily splinting assistance and passive range of motion (ROM) six day a week as written in the resident comprehensive care plan based on therapy services recommendations; to address limitations related to self-care deficits due to decreased mobility and limited ROM.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services were provided for incontinence care for one (#24) of three residents reviewed out of 30 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #24 had physician orders and a corresponding person centered care plan related to the nephrostomy bags.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 15, 2024 | Fine | $9,636 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Colorado | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 2.93 | 3.72 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.47 | 0.82 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.90 | 3.29 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.70 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.76 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.1% | 47.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 22.2% | 44.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.77 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 2.95 on weekdays and 2.90 on weekends, 2% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 6.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.16 in April to June 2025 to 2.93 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 2.93 | 0.47 | 2.95 | 2.90 | 6.4% | 0 of 90 | 83 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.99 | 0.48 | 3.00 | 2.97 | 5.7% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.23 | 0.55 | 3.23 | 3.21 | 7.8% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.16 | 0.53 | 3.20 | 3.05 | 11.5% | 0 of 91 | 85 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Colorado, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.59 | 0.76 | 3.75 | 3.18 | 5.9% | 0.2% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.78 | $21.42 to $24.00 | 22,240 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.52 | $29.76 to $38.37 | 4,920 |
| Registered nurses | $48.20 | $40.67 to $52.37 | 54,490 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Colorado | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.8 | 13.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.4 | 13.3 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.9 | 20.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.9 | 20.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.1 | 12.1 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Amberwood Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Colorado: 39 better, 8 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 27 eligible stays.
10.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Colorado: 3 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 51 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Colorado: 4 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 12 eligible stays.
76.9% this home
Median of homes: Colorado65.0% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 26 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Colorado0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 37 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Colorado0.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 37 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure.
Median of homes: Colorado99.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: AMBERWOOD HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centennial Master Tenant, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/01/2023 |
| Providence Group Nh, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/30/2023 |
| Naquin, Kennedy | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/10/2023 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Hancock, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Colorado. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.