714 North Butte Avenue, Emmett, ID 83617 · Gem County · (208) 365-4425
74 certified beds, about 66 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1970
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 135020 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 16, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Idaho average is 10.3, the national average 9.2).
None of its 26 health citations since December 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.50 hours per resident per day, against 4.04 across Idaho and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.88 of those hours.
52.4% 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 26 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, the FDA Food Code, the SOM, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure ice machines were cleaned. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all facility residents who consumed ice 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, resident interviews, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide a homelike environment when a resident's closet doors and sink countertop were left unrepaired. This was true for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #9) whose rooms were observed. This created the potential for psychosocial harm and embarrassment if residents did not have a homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's comprehensive assessment was accurate. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #21) whose resident assessments were investigated for potential errors. This failure placed Resident #21 at risk for their needs to go unmet due to the inaccuracy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of professional standards of practice, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were prepared and administered safely and in accordance with nationally recognized standards. This failure was observed when licensed nurses pre-poured medications and left pre-poured medication cups including narcotics unsecured in medication carts. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility by increasing the risk of medication errors, contamination, diversion, and administration of medications to the wrong residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, review of nationally recognized standard of practice, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to prevent avoidable accidents by not ensuring residents received the level of supervision and assistance required by their care plans. This was true for 2 of 6 residents (#1 and #2) whose records were reviewed for accidents. This failure resulted in falls during care and created the potential for serious injury to all residents requiring assistance with transfers or repositioning.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders for oxygen therapy were followed for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #56) reviewed for oxygen therapy. This failure placed resident #56 at risk for adverse effects, including respiratory infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a medication was provided with adequate indications for its use. This was true for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #57) whose records were reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed Resident #57 at risk for harm when they were taking a medication which they did not have a clinical diagnosis for.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a safe and secure manner. This failure had the potential to affect all residents in the facility, as unsecured medications could be accessed by individuals for whom they were not prescribed, creating a risk for harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' identifiable information was secured. This failure had the potential to affect all residents in the facility, as unsecured electronic records could allow unauthorized access to protected health information. It was also determined the facility failed to ensure resident records were accurately documented for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for record accuracy. These failures created the potential for breaches of confidentiality and inaccurate medical documentation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention practices were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment when staff did not perform hand hygiene or use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during cares. This was true for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #1) observed for infection control during cares. This failed practice created the potential for adverse outcomes including infection due to cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on Resident Group interview, Resident Council Meeting minutes review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident concerns were addressed. These negative practices placed residents at risk of ongoing frustration and decreased sense of self-worth, as well as, unmet care needs, when issues of concern to them were not promptly addressed by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the State Operations Manual, Apprendix PP, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a notice of transfer was provided to the State Long Term Care Ombudsman when residents where transferred to the hospital. This was true for 4 of 5 residents (Resident #19, #30, #32, and #33) whose records were reviewed for hospital transfers. This deficient practice had the potential for harm if residents were discharged inappropriately without access to the Ombudsman who could inform them of their rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, Nurse Aides (NA) job description, staffing schedules, personnel files, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure full-time employees working as a NA were either in a State approved training and competency evaluation program or had recently and successfully completed such a program. This was true for 4 of 11 NAs (NA #1, #2, #3, and #4) whose personnel files were reviewed. This failure had the potential to result in negative outcomes for the 54 residents living in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention practices were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment when gown was not donned during sorting of dirty laundry. These failures had the potential for negative outcomes by exposing resident to the risk of infection and cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a safe, clean, and homelike environment. This was true for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #44) whose room was observed for cleanliness, safety, and homelike environment. This deficient practice created the potential for diminished quality of life and safety risk.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment accurately reflected a resident's status. This was true for 3 of 3 residents (#32, #48, and #52) whose MDS assessments were reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if the resident was not assessed and/or monitored due to inaccurate assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on State Operation Manual Appendix PP, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to refer residents for further evaluation when residents were diagnosed with a major mental illness. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #45) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II evaluations. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm if the residents' specialized services for mental health needs were not evaluated by an appropriate state-designated authority to provide coordinated care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to professional standards of practice. This was true for 2 of 2 residents (#18 and #25) whose records were reviewed and 1 of 6 residents (Resident #27) observed during medication administration. These failed practices created the potential for residents to experienced adverse effects when their medications were not administered according to the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident-centered care was provided in accordance with professional standards of nursing practice and residents' comprehensive care plans. This was true for 2 of 17 residents (Resident #6, and Resident #19) reviewed for quality of care. This deficient practice had the potential to adversely affect or harm residents whose care and services were not delivered according to accepted standards of clinical practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%. This was true for 2 of 29 medications (6.9%) which affected 1 of 9 residents (Resident #41) whose medication administration was observed. This failure created the potential for Resident #41 to experience low or high blood sugars when she received an incorrect amount of insulin.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received information and assistance to exercise their rights to formulate an Advance Directive and this was documented in their record. This was true for 2 of 12 residents (#11 and #30) whose records were reviewed. This failed practice created the potential for harm or adverse outcome if the resident's wishes were not followed or documented regarding their advance care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a bed hold notice was provided to residents or their representatives upon transfer to the hospital. This was true of 1 of 1 resident (Resident #49) reviewed for transfer. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial distresss if residents were not informed of their right to return to their former bed/room at the facility within a specified time.
Inspectors wrote3. The facility's Bowel and Bladder management policy, revised 11/2023, documented residents were to be assessed upon admission for incontinence and a comprehensive care plan would be initiated after residents were evaluated and assessed. This policy was not followed. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure (the heart is unable to pump blood efficiently), and dementia. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #25 was frequently incontinent of bowel (two or more incontinent episodes in 7 days but at least 1 continent episode), and frequently incontinent of urine (more than 7 episodes of incontinence, but at least 1 continent episode in 7 days). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, I&A report review, review of the State Agency's Long-Term Care Reporting Portal, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring for residents with a pressure alarm (a device that responds to changes in weight and pressure by emitting an alarm) to their bed. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #102) whose records were reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the facility's arbitration agreement was explained and understood by residents and/or their representatives. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Residet #30) whose arbitration agreements were reviewed. This failure had the potential to cause significant psychological distress to residents and/or their representatives by not clearly knowing their rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidance the facility follows for pneumococcal vaccination, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were offered or received the recommended pneumococcal vaccines. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for immunizations. This failure created the potential for harm should residents contract Pneumococcal pneumonia and experience illness from pneumonia.
16 fire safety citations on file: 3 on April 16, 2026, 3 on December 6, 2024, 10 on December 14, 2023.
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) | 3.50 | 4.04 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.07 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.01 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.61 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.4% | 50.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.5% | 40.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.59 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 3.67 on weekdays and 3.07 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.73 in April to June 2025 to 3.50 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 | 3.50 | 0.88 | 3.67 | 3.07 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 66 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.50 | 0.94 | 3.68 | 3.04 | 3.3% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.56 | 1.01 | 3.71 | 3.21 | 2.4% | 0 of 92 | 57 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.73 | 0.82 | 3.88 | 3.35 | 0.5% | 0 of 91 | 55 |
| 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 | 24.2 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.1 | 16.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 38.6 | 20.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.2 | 17.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.2 | 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 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for River's Edge Rehabilitation & Living Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (59.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.6% 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. 58 eligible stays.
9.2% 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. 70 eligible stays.
7.2% 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. 31 eligible stays.
72.2% 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. 36 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 43 residents counted.
3.6% 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. 43 residents counted.
100.0% 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: GEM 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allen, Daniel | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/07/2023 | |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Corporate director | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2010 | |
| Hawkins, Isaiah | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Sato, Ami | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Progressive Nurse Staffing LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2010 | |
| Twomagnets LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2010 | |
| Allen, Daniel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/07/2023 | |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Port, Barry | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/07/2025 | |
| Caretrust Gp LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2010 | |
| Caretrust Reit Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2010 | |
| Ctr Partnership LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2010 | |
| Emmett Healthcare Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2010 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/21/2012 | |
| Allen, Daniel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/07/2025 | |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/07/2025 |
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.