12230 Lioness Wy, Parker, CO 80134 · Douglas County · (720) 214-7777
96 certified beds, about 81 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare since 2012
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 065403 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 21, 2024, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Colorado average is 8.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 29 health citations since September 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.87 hours per resident per day, against 3.72 across Colorado and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.07 of those hours.
46.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Colorado average 47.1%).
CMS links it to Veritas Management Group, an affiliated group of 13 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 29 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (#1) of five residents reviewed for accidents out of five sample residents. Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] for postoperative left knee replacement rehabilitation services and physical therapy. Resident #1 was determined to be a high fall risk related to her postoperative status and history of falls. On 10/17/25 Resident #1 sustained an unwitnessed fall when she was left unattended in the bathroom. On 10/24/25 Resident #1 sustained an additional fall when she was left unattended in the shower. She sustained a left femur fracture that was deemed inoperable for repair. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were consistently implemented for Resident #1, which resulted in a fall with major injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to consistently serve food that was palatable and attractive. Specifically, the facility failed to consistently ensure foods were appealing and palatable in temperature and seasoning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, distributed and served under sanitary conditions in the main kitchen and two of two nourishment refrigerators. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure ready-to-eat foods were handled in a sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination in the main kitchen; and, -Ensure safe and appropriate storage of food items in the kitchen and nourishment room refrigerators.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop an acute/baseline care plan for four (#380, #376, #382 and #225) of four residents reviewed for baseline care plans out of 60 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #380, #376, #382 and #225 were provided a copy of their baseline care plan with 48 hours of admission to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge plan for nine (#376, #378, #380, #371, #388, #382, #10, #185 and #225) of 10 residents reviewed for discharge planning out of 60 sample residents. Specifically, for Residents #376, #378, #380, #371, #388, #382, #10, #185 and #225, the facility failed to: -Ensure residents and their representatives were involved in the development of the discharge plan; -Ensure the discharge plan of care was updated with the residents' discharge goals; and, -Ensure the discharge planning process was documented in the residents' electronic medical records (EMR).
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 diseases and infection on one of three units. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure staff wore the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in COVID-19 positive resident rooms; -Ensure proper infection control practices were followed for wound care; -Identify an effective process to ensure staff were aware of which residents required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP); and, -Ensure staff wore the appropriate PPE for residents on EBP.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure consent was obtained for the use of psychotropic medications for one (#226) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications out of 60 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure informed consent, which included the risks associated with taking a psychotropic medication, were obtained for Resident #226 prior to the administration of a psychotropic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to honor resident choices for one (#53) of one resident out of 60 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #53's preference to have her bed bath completed during the day shift was honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of property for three (#228, #46 and #229) of three residents reviewed for personal property out of 60 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to prevent the loss of property for Resident #228, Resident #46 and Resident #229 during their time in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure activities were designed to support residents physical, mental and psychosocial well-being were provided for two (#373 and #36) of two residents out of 60 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to identify and meet the socialization needs for Resident #373 and #36.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (#53) one resident out of 60 sample residents. Resident #53 was admitted to the facility for rehabilitation services on 10/4/24 with a diagnosis of fracture of the left femur, end stage renal disease, type two diabetes and morbid obesity. The 10/5/24 admission skin assessment indicated the resident had a surgical incision on her left hip, multiple scattered bruises to both upper extremities and a chest port for dialysis. The assessment did not indicate that the resident had any abdominal wounds. On 10/24/24 the resident was noted to have two facility acquired moisture associated skin disorder (MASD) wounds to her abdominal folds. The facility failed to provide the resident with showers per her preferences. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#174) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers out of 60 sample residents received the necessary treatment and services according to professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #174's physician ordered heel protection boots were consistently implemented as an intervention to prevent potential pressure wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#382) of one resident reviewed for pain out of 60 sample residents had an effective pain management regimen in a manner consistent with professional standards of practice, resident-centered care plans and resident preferences. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #382, who experienced an acute episode of pain, was provided pain relief and had an effective pain management program to address her continuous pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of one (#1) of three residents out of three sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure two inhaler medications for Resident #1 were ordered and delivered to the facility as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored, and served under safe and sanitary conditions to prevent the potential contamination of food and the spread of food-borne illness in one of one kitchens. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure a clean and sanitary kitchen within the dry storage room; around the grill and fryer; within smaller refrigerator units; and surfaces of the kitchen; and, -Ensure open food items were properly labeled with open dates and sealed for storage to prevent contamination.
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 diseases and infection for six out of six rooms. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure housekeeping staff were following the proper cleaning techniques for cleaning resident rooms and disinfecting high frequency touched areas (call lights, door handles, phone and hand rails); -Ensure surface disinfectant times were followed; and, -Ensure staff followed personal protective equipment (PPE) precautions for a resident diagnosed with COVID-19 when providing care and when cleaning the resident room.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a system of documenting grievances and demonstrating prompt action for residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Follow up and document Resident #33's grievance reported to a staff member; and, -Ensure residents were aware how to file a grievance and place grievance forms in prominent locations throughout the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent for three residents (#226, #232 and #236). Specifically, the facility had a medication error rate of 7.89 percent, which was three errors out of 38 opportunities for error.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents were kept free of significant medication errors for three residents (#226 #232 and #236) of four reviewed for medication administration out of 44 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure insulin pens were primed prior to medication administration for Residents #226, #232 and #236. Cross-reference F759 failure to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with accepted professional standards on two of two units reviewed of four units. Specifically the facility failed to: -Ensure prescribed medications were labeled correctly; -Remove expired medications from the cart; and, -Ensure topical medications were not stored with oral medications. I. Professional standards According to [NAME], P.A., [NAME], A.G., et.al., Fundamentals of Nursing, 10 ed. (2020), E.[NAME], St. Louis Missouri, pp. 608, Medication error often occurs because a patient gets a medication intended for another patient. Therefore, an important step in safe medication administration is being sure that you give the right medication to the right patient. II. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to consistently serve food that was palatable and attractive at the appropriate temperatures for all residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident food was palatable in taste and temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement an effective training program for staff. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure two certified nurse aides (CNA) out of five CNAs reviewed completed the required annual abuse identification, prevention and reporting training; and, -Ensure three CNAs out of five CNAs reviewed completed the required annual dementia care training.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored and served under sanitary conditions for one of one serving areas. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: --Food temperatures of cold food items were held at the proper temperature to reduce the risk of food borne illness; and --Disinfecting chemicals were maintained at appropriate parts per million (PPM). --Chemical constituents were not making contact with food
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of five percent (%) or greater. Specifically, the medication pass observation error rate was 10%, or three errors out of 30 opportunities for error.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were followed to prevent the spread of infection. Specifically the facility failed to: -Follow proper handwashing; -Follow proper glove use when working between dirty and clean processes; -Clean equipment between residents; and -Use personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three residents (#173, #182, and #63) out of five were treated with respect and dignity. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure staff addressed concerns about food and medication for Resident #182; -Ensure outside agency staff interacted with Resident #173 who had severe cognitive impairments, in a manner appropriate to his health care needs; and -Provide meaningful interaction with Resident #63 to ensure needs were met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for two (#276 and #63) of two residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed: - to provide timely incontinent care for Resident #276 - to provide meal assistance to Resident #63
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to establish nurses were able to demonstrate the skills and competencies needed to provide peripheral intravenous central catheter (PICC) line care to residents. Specifically the facility failed to: -provide an order to obtain blood from a PICC line -discard blood according to standard during PICC lab draw -ensure LPN #4 had an intravenous (IV) certificate to work on the PICC line
Inspectors wroteII.Failed to follow physician prescribed pain level parameters when administering pain medications to Resident #63. A.Facility policy The Pain Management for Cognitively Impaired Residents policy, dated 5/9/17, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 9/12/19 at 4:02 p.m. It read in pertinent part; Purpose is to help staff identify pain in the resident, and to develop interventions to manage resident's pain when resident is cognitively impaired. It is the responsibility of the nursing staff member to evaluate the resident's pain every shift. If the resident has a cognitive impairment, the [name brand] Pain Scale should be utilized. B.Resident #63's status Resident #63, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. [...]
14 fire safety citations on file: 3 on November 21, 2024, 10 on June 6, 2023, 1 on September 12, 2019.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 4.87 | 3.72 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.07 | 0.82 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.41 | 3.29 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.48 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.33 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.2% | 47.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 53.6% | 44.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.90 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 5.05 on weekdays and 4.41 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 15.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.59 in April to June 2025 to 4.87 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 | 4.87 | 1.07 | 5.05 | 4.41 | 15.9% | 0 of 90 | 81 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 5.24 | 1.12 | 5.44 | 4.71 | 9.4% | 0 of 92 | 62 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.04 | 1.17 | 5.30 | 4.41 | 15.3% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.59 | 1.32 | 4.75 | 4.19 | 12.0% | 0 of 91 | 80 |
| 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 short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.2 | 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 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Center at Lincoln, LLC, the's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.8% 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. 518 eligible stays.
11.0% 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. 493 eligible stays.
5.9% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 287 eligible stays.
51.1% 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. 176 residents counted.
0.4% 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. 243 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. 243 residents counted.
98.2% this home
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. 163 residents counted.
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: CENTER AT LINCOLN, LLC. CMS links this home to Veritas Management Group, a group of 13 nursing homes averaging 4.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Don Quixote Enterprises, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 6% | 09/01/2012 |
| Greenhow, Robert | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 7% | 09/01/2012 |
| Loucks, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 7% | 09/01/2012 |
| Barker, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/01/2012 | |
| Murdock, Monte | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2012 | |
| Veritas Management Group LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2012 |
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.