1134 Cheney Dr West, Twin Falls, ID 83301 · Twin Falls County · (208) 644-7100
60 certified beds, about 54 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2018
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 135143 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 26, 2026, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Idaho average is 10.3, the national average 9.2).
Of 27 health citations since July 2024, 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 3.91 hours per resident per day, against 4.04 across Idaho and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.67 of those hours.
68.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Idaho average 50.3%).
CMS links it to Tanabell Health Services, an affiliated group of 5 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 27 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, and document review, it was determined that the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity. This was true for 3 of 3 residents (#73, #77, and #79) observed for dignity. This deficient practice had the potential for residents to experience embarrassment and low feelings of self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for 4 of 4 residents (#4, #10, #19, and #44) reviewed for bowel and bladder care. This failed practice created the potential for residents to experience discomfort when their medications were not administered according to the physician's order.
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 offer or encourage residents hand hygiene prior to meals and follow proper cleaning of medical equipment and handling of linens. These failures had the potential to impact all residents in the facility by placing them at risk for cross contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, record review, and policy review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's preference for bathing schedule was honored. This was true for 1 of 23 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for choices. This deficient practice had the potential for residents to experience a decreased sense of well-being, lack of self-worth, and frustration when their preference for bathing was not accommodated.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 day use. This was true for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #4) reviewed for psychotropic medication use. This failure created the potential for residents to be subjected to unnecessary psychotropic medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a written notice of transfer and bed hold policy was provided to the resident or their representative when residents were transferred to the hospital. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for transfers. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial distress if residents and their representatives were not made aware of or able to exercise their rights related to transfers from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review, staff interview, and policy review it was determined the facility failed to provide a resident's baseline care plan to the resident or his/her representative for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #73) reviewed for baseline care plan. This failure placed residents and their representatives at risk of not being informed and having input in their care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents maintained a person-centered comprehensive care plan. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #76) whose record was reviewed for comprehensive care plans. This created the potential for harm when staff were not informed of person-centered care and treatment interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were given treatment and services to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs). This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #12) reviewed for decline in ADLs without services. This failure placed residents at risk for decreased range of motion, functional ability, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that parenteral/IV fluids were administered consistently with professional standards of practice. This occurred for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for IV therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was accurate and posted daily for each shift. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility and their representatives, visitors, and others who wanted to review the facility's staffing levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were monitored appropriately for medication. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure created the potential for residents to experience adverse reactions due to the lack of appropriate monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were secure and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents and were destroyed in a timely manner when they were discontinued to prevent unauthorized access and potential diversion. This was true for 1 of 2 medication storage rooms inspected and 1 of 4 medication carts observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, policy review, and review of the FDA Food Code, the facility failed to ensure food items were dated and labeled. These deficient practices had the potential to impact all residents who received food brought in by family or visitors. This placed residents at risk for potential use of spoiled foods and adverse health outcomes including food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure trash was contained in the facility's dumpsters with closed lids for two of two outside trash dumpsters and the kitchen garbage cans were properly closed with tight fitting lids. This failed practice created the potential for insect and pest infestation.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete clinical records were maintained for each resident. This was true for 3 of 3 Residents (#76, #77, and #79) reviewed for oxygen administration orders. This deficient practice created the potential for harm should inappropriate care and/or treatment be provided based on inaccurate information in the residents' clinical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, Hoyer lift manual review, interview, and review of the facility's investigation report, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident safety during Hoyer lift transfers. This was true for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #174) whose record was reviewed for falls. This resulted in harm to Resident #174 when a proper Hoyer lift transfer was not provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the FDA Food Code, observation, and interview, the facility failed to appropriately store, distribute, and label foods. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who received meals prepared in the facility's kitchen. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination and use of spoiled foods, and adverse health outcomes including food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity. This was true for a) 2 of 5 residents (#22 and #45) who had uncovered urinary drainage bags and b) 1 of 19 Residents (Resident #50) who was addressed by a room number not her name. This deficient practice had the potential for residents to experience embarrassment, and low feelings of self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident #28), was assessed and evaluated for cognitive and physical ability to self-administer medications. This failure created the potential for adverse outcomes if Resident #28 self-administered medication inappropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed and implemented to include resident sleep apnea equipment needs. This was true for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #164) reviewed for baseline care plans. This failure placed residents at risk of negative outcomes if services were not provided or provided incorrectly due to lack of information in their care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were tracked and kept secure from potential theft and/or diversion. This was true for 2 of 4 medication carts reviewed. This failure created the potential for undetected misuse and/or diversion of controlled medications and had the potential to affect all residents who received controlled medication in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications and lab draw supplies were properly stored in a locked compartment, and biologicals were labeled when opened. These deficient practices created the potential for undetected access to medications by unauthorized personnel and use of expired biologicals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, review of Resident Council minutes, review of facility grievances, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident meals were served following the facility's designated meal schedule. This was true for 4 of 5 residents (#20, #29, #30, and #111) interviewed for concerns with food. This failure had the potential to impact residents in the facility who were at risk for nutritional compromise and had the potential to harm residents if they experienced hunger, low blood sugar levels, or did not receive adequate nutritional support for healing or weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's MDS assessment accurately reflected their status at the time of the assessment (Resident #30) and a resident's comprehensive MDS assessment was completed prior to the required completion date (Resident #211). This was true for 2 of 2 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. This failure created the potential for harm if care decisions were based upon inaccurate or lack of information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review. policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received meal assistance or were provided meal recommendations. This was true for 2 of 5 residents (#29 and #39) reviewed for nutritional status. This failure created the potential for harm if residents became dehydrated and they experienced unplanned weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were followed. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #8) reviewed. This failure increased the risk of spreading multidrug resistant organisms.
11 fire safety citations on file: 1 on June 26, 2026, 7 on May 1, 2025, 3 on July 11, 2024.
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) | 3.91 | 4.04 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.67 | 0.86 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.60 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.53 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.71 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 68.3% | 50.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 55.6% | 40.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.05 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 4.03 on weekdays and 3.60 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.69 in April to June 2025 to 3.91 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 | 3.91 | 0.67 | 4.03 | 3.60 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 54 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.79 | 0.65 | 3.88 | 3.57 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.63 | 0.61 | 3.72 | 3.39 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 54 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.69 | 0.52 | 3.80 | 3.42 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 54 |
| 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 | 17.5 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 42.2 | 16.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 28.6 | 20.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.1 | 17.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.0 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Serenity Transitional Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.9% 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. 237 eligible stays.
8.6% 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. 257 eligible stays.
5.4% 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. 155 eligible stays.
77.1% 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. 131 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. 154 residents counted.
1.5% 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. 153 residents counted.
98.7% 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. 79 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: TANABELL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.. CMS links this home to Tanabell Health Services, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serenity Rehabilitation and Care Center, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2023 | |
| Bell, Jamie | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 10/01/2018 | |
| Bell Property Management, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2023 |
| Bell, Jamie | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2018 | |
| Bell, Troy | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2018 | |
| Bell, Jamie | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/01/2018 | |
| Serenity Rehabilitation and Care Center, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2023 | |
| Tanabell Health Services, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2018 | |
| Bell, Jamie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2018 | |
| Bell, Troy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2018 | |
| Campione, Buffy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2017 | |
| Dopp, Matthew | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2018 | |
| Bell Property Management, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2023 | |
| Serenity Rehabilitation and Care Center, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2023 | |
| Tanabell Health Services, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2018 | |
| Bell, Jamie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2018 | |
| Bell, Troy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Campione, Buffy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2017 | |
| Dopp, Matthew | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2018 |
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.