2200 Ironwood Place, Coeur D'alene, ID 83814 · Kootenai County · (208) 667-6486
80 certified beds, about 67 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1973
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 135053 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 1, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Idaho average is 10.3, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since October 2021, 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 3.71 hours per resident per day, against 4.04 across Idaho and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.79 of those hours.
62.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Idaho average 50.3%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, SOM Appendix PP, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide quality care for residents. This was true for 4 of 20 (#2, #4, #8, and #51) whose records were reviewed. This deficient practice created the potential for harm when Resident #2's bowel protocol was not followed, when staff did not follow physician's orders for Resident #4 and #8, and when Resident #51 did not have a skin assessments completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a safe, comfortable, and homelike environment. This was true for 2 of 2 residents (#13 and #30) whose rooms were observed with wear or damage and for residents living in 2 of 3 Halls (South and East Halls) who experienced uneven flooring. These deficient practices created the potential for the residents to experience accidents and psychosocial harm due to the conditions of the rooms and uneven flooring.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #50) observed during cares. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial harm if Resident #50 experienced embarrassment or lack of self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide self-administration of medication assessments. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #5) whose record was reviewed for self-administration of medications. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if Resident #5 took too much or too little of his inhaled medication, or suffered adverse effects, such as oral thrush, due to lack of assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of records and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure a bed-hold notice was provided to a resident and/or their representatives. This was true for 1 of 3 resident (Resident #50) whose records was reviewed. This failure created the potential for psychosocial distress if Resident #50 could not return to the facility following hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement residents' comprehensive person-centered care plan. This was true for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #6) whose care plan was reviewed. This deficient practice placed Resident #6 at risk for their health and wellbeing with negative outcomes if services were not provided or provided incorrectly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff administered and disposed of medications according to professional standards. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #79) observed during medication administration, and 1 of 6 residents (Resident #11) whose medication regimen were reviewed. These failures created the risk for harm when Resident #79's medication was not disposed of appropriately and when the nurse did not follow the physician's order for two medications, and a risk for harm to Resident #11 when two of their medication orders were written to administer by the wrong route.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of records and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) received bath/shower assistance. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #20) whose ADL record was reviewed. This deficient practice created the potential for Resident #20 to experience diminished self-worth, embarrassment, and an increased risk for developing skin conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, SOM Appendix PP, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to assess the safety of a resident electing to smoke. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #80) whose record was reviewed for safe smoking assessments. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if a resident was not appropriately assessed for safety related to smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory care as ordered by the physician. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #5) whose record was reviewed for oxygen therapy. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if resident's oxygen therapy did not follow physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were stored securely. This was true for 1 of 3 medication carts observed (North Hall Med Cart). This failure created the potential for harm related to unmonitored use of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined, the facility failed to ensure a residents medical record was complete and accurately documented. This was true for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #11) whose medication regimen were reviewed. This failure created the potential for poor continuity of care and medication error when Resident #11's medication administration record (MAR) did not record their medications were not administered due to a hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of CDC guidance, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an infection control program was implemented. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #37) whose intravenous site was observed, and 1 of 1 staff (RN #2) who was observed while providing wound care to Resident #50. This deficient practice created the potential for Resident #37 to develop an infection to his IV site and the spread of infection due to cross contamination when RN #2 did not perform hand hygiene when changing gloves.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with the pneumococcal vaccine when requested. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #6) whose medical records were reviewed for pneumococcal immunization. This failure created the potential for Resident #6 to have an increased risk of pneumococcal pneumonia (a serious bacterial lung infection) and the potential for severe illness or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records, the State Survey Agency's Long-Term Care Reporting Portal, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' rights were protected to be free from abuse and neglect. This was true for 2 of 9 residents (#69 and #72) reviewed for abuse and neglect. This failure placed all residents at risk of ongoing abuse and neglect, and potential physical and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services, including resident assessments, individual plans of care, and the number, acuity, and diagnoses of the facility's resident population. These deficiencies had the potential to affect all residents requiring medical nutrition therapy, nutritional assessments, and appropriate supplementation and dietary interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity that promoted enhancement of his/her quality of life and dining experience. This deficiency created the potential for psychosocial harm if the residents felt excluded from the dining experience. This was true for 3 of 24 residents (#1, #17, and #28) who were observed eating in the dining room.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure staff provided meal service according to the facility's posted mealtime schedule. This failure created the potential for 69 residents to experience poor quality of life, potential nutritional issues, and complications with medications required to be taken with meals if waiting more than 45 minutes to receive their meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the kitchen equipment and environment was maintained, clean, and food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner. These deficiencies had the potential to affect the 69 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination of food and adverse health outcomes, including food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed ensure Activity Room has adequate and comfortable lighting for the residents to enjoy their activity. This failure had the potential for residents to experienced psychosocial harm if they were unable to perform their independent functioning and task performance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, record review, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure allegations of sexual abuse were reported to the Administrator and, within two hours, to the State Agency. This was true for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for abuse and neglect. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial harm to Resident #13 whose sexual abuse allegation was not reported and investigated thoroughly.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an alleged allegation of sexual abuse was thoroughly investigated. This was true for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for abuse and neglect. This deficient practice created the potential for Resident #13 to continue to be sexually abused and experience physical and/or psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 2 of 18 residents (#32 and #42) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed residents at risk of adverse outcomes if care and services were not provided due to care plans not being revised as residents' needs changed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for standards of practice. Resident #42 was not evaluated for a skin condition. This deficient practice created a potential for harm if care and services were not provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure podiatry (foot) services were provided as ordered for 2 of 2 residents (#13 and #61) reviewed for podiatry care. This deficient practice created the potential for residents to experience physical complications related to elongated and/or ingrown toenails and poor circulation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents receiving PRN alprazolam (anti-anxiety medication) had clear indication for the use of the medication and clinical rationale supporting the continued use of the medication beyond 14 days. This was true for 1 of 6 (Resident #32) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficient practice had the potential for harm should residents received psychotropic medications that are unwarranted and used for excessive duration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, I&A report review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed related to ensuring residents were free from significant medication errors, neurological checks were completed, and physician orders were followed. This was true for 4 of 13 residents (#2, #10, #38, and #41) reviewed for quality of care. Specifically: * Resident #2 was at risk for deteriorating effects of his severe PVD (Peripheral Vascular Disease - a circulatory problem in which narrowed arteries reduce blood flow to the limbs, leading to pain and the potential for non-healing wounds and tissue death) when he did not receive a referral to a vascular surgeon and a podiatrist as ordered by his physician. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention practices related to hand hygiene were followed. This was true for 7 of 7 residents (#10, #13, #22, #32, #33, #39, and #44) observed for hand hygiene prior to meals being served and after toileting. This failure placed residents, staff and visitors entering the facility at increased risk of infection due to cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and resident family and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's physician, family, and/or representative were notified when the resident had a significant change in condition. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #41) whose records were reviewed for changes in condition. This failed practice had the potential to cause delayed care and treatment resulting from lack of notification to the physician and/or family of her significant weight loss and a fall. This deficient practice placed Resident #41 at risk of inadequate care due to the lack of physician involvement and resulted in the inability of her family to advocate and support her when her health declined.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, staff interview, and review of Incident and Accident (I&A) reports, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13 was not abused by other residents. This failure resulted in the potential for residents to be subjected to ongoing abuse and potential harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, policy review, and review of grievances, it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of potential abuse to the State Survey Agency within 2 hours. This affected 1 of 4 residents (Resident #50) who were reviewed for abuse/neglect. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if allegations were not acted upon in a timely manner and the abuse/neglect continued.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, grievance review, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an allegation of potential verbal abuse was investigated. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for abuse/neglect. This deficient practice placed Resident #50 at risk of further abuse and other residents in the facility at risk of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with baths or showers consistent with their needs. This was true for 2 of 13 residents (#13, and #42) reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure created the potential for residents to experience embarrassment, isolation, decreased sense of self-worth, and/or skin impairment, due to lack of personal hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, I&A report review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided sufficient supervision to prevent falls. This was true for 1 of 13 residents (#38) reviewed for falls. This deficient practice placed Resident #38 at risk of serious injuries and hospitalization when he sustained five falls within less than a month, including one fall a day for three consecutive days, resulting in multiple skin injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's urinary catheter needs were met in accordance with professional standards of nursing practice. This was true for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #20) reviewed for urinary catheters. This failed practice created the potential for harm and development of urinary tract infections due to improper handling of the urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a alternatives to bed rails were attempted, and consent was obtained from the resident or the resident's legal representative prior to placing bed rails on a resident's bed. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for bed rails. This failure created the potential for harm due to the risk of entrapment and due to lack of opportunity for the resident and/or their representative to make an informed decision regarding the use of bed rails.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' records documented residents were offered, provided education regarding benefits and potential side effects, consented to, and received or refused pneumococcal vaccines. This was true for 2 of 5 residents (#10 and #19) reviewed for immunizations. This failure placed residents at risk of severe illness or death, should they contract pneumococcal (bacterial) pneumonia.
21 fire safety citations on file: 7 on May 1, 2026, 14 on October 22, 2021.
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 | Idaho | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.71 | 4.04 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.79 | 0.86 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.24 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.78 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 62.2% | 50.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 62.5% | 40.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 3 |
CMS expects 3.60 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 3.89 on weekdays and 3.24 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.14 in April to June 2025 to 3.71 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 | 3.71 | 0.79 | 3.89 | 3.24 | 1.6% | 0 of 90 | 67 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.74 | 0.77 | 3.90 | 3.34 | 4.2% | 0 of 92 | 62 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.03 | 0.74 | 4.30 | 3.33 | 6.7% | 0 of 92 | 62 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.14 | 0.75 | 4.40 | 3.49 | 1.6% | 0 of 91 | 68 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Idaho, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.90 | 0.80 | 4.11 | 3.37 | 4.9% | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.58 | $17.45 to $22.23 | 7,910 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.67 | $28.04 to $35.60 | 1,880 |
| Registered nurses | $44.45 | $38.90 to $49.19 | 16,880 |
| 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 | Idaho | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.5 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.6 | 16.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.5 | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.2 | 20.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 34.0 | 17.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ironwood Rehabilitation and Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Idaho: 18 better, 3 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. 136 eligible stays.
9.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Idaho: 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. 164 eligible stays.
6.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Idaho: 1 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. 64 eligible stays.
53.5% this home
Median of homes: Idaho62.2% · 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. 43 residents counted.
1.4% this home
Median of homes: Idaho0.0% · 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. 72 residents counted.
2.9% this home
Median of homes: Idaho1.1% · 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. 72 residents counted.
96.4% this home
Median of homes: Idaho98.1% · 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. 28 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: GOLDEN RIDGE HEALTHCARE, INC.. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bodily, Brandon | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Brar, Pushapdeep | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Corporate director | Individual | 09/20/2024 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/20/2024 | |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/20/2024 | |
| Hawkins, Isaiah | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/20/2024 | |
| Port, Barry | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/26/2018 | |
| Sato, Ami | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/20/2024 | |
| Bodily, Brandon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Bodily, Brandon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2025 | |
| Brar, Pushapdeep | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2025 |
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 Idaho. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.