5540 South 1050 East, Ogden, UT 84405 · Weber County · (801) 479-8455
122 certified beds, about 84 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1987
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 465117 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 21, 2025, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Utah average is 8.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since September 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $68,891 in the last three years; the largest was $40,055, and the latest is dated September 16, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.71 hours per resident per day, against 4.09 across Utah and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.05 of those hours.
60.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Utah average 50.7%).
CMS links it to Cascades Healthcare, an affiliated group of 19 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 43 sampled residents, the facility did not allow each resident the right to formulate an advance directive. Specifically, a resident did not have a Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. Resident identifier: 76. Resident 76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, and Alzheimer's disease. Resident 76's medical record was reviewed on 8/18/25 through 8/21/25. No orders related to a code status or a POLST form could be located in resident 76's medical records. On 8/19/25 at 10:46 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, who stated that she was unable to locate any orders related to resident 76's code status. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility did not ensure residents who were continent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI). Specifically, for 1 out of 43 sampled residents, a resident was not started on antibiotics for 11 days after complaining of continued dysuria. Resident identifier: 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not obtain laboratory (lab) services only when ordered by a physician; physician assistant; nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist. Specifically, for 1 out of 43 sampled residents, a resident had a Complete Blood Count (CBC), Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) collected prior to the date the physician's order stated. Resident identifier: 7.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined for 2 out of 43 sampled residents, that the facility did not file in the resident's clinical record laboratory reports that were dated and contained the name and address of the testing laboratory. Specifically, two residents laboratory results were not located in the electronic medical record. Resident identifiers: 5 and 85.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professionals standards for food safety. Specifically, there were observations of numerous flies making contact with food preparation surfaces and utensils in the kitchen, observations of kitchen staff not properly wearing hairnets, observations of staff not washing their hands after leaving the kitchen and returning, and observations of dirty ceiling tiles above food preparation areas of the kitchen. Findings Included:On 8/20/25 at 11:37 AM, an observation was made of the facility kitchen while lunch was being plated and served. There were multiple flies in the kitchen. The flies were landing on hotel pans and food preparation tables. The ceiling above the tray line area of the kitchen was dirty. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 43 sampled residents, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that was complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and systematically organized. Specifically, a resident had no documentation regarding an incident. Resident identifier: 36.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility did not provide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service. Specifically, surveyors observed two meals that were served late, multiple residents complained of late meals during the initial pool, and there were grievances filed by residents about late meals. Resident identifier: 2 and 44. Findings Included: The posted facility meal times posted outside of the main dining room were as follows: Breakfast: 7:30 to 8:30 AM Lunch: 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM Dinner: 4:30 to 5:30 PM The facility serves residents who eat in their rooms first and then serves residents who choose to eat in the dining room after. On 3/17/25, an observation was made of the breakfast meal service at the facility. The facility did not finish serving residents in the dining room until 8:52 AM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure that each resident received and the facility provided food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, surveyors sampled a test tray and found it to not be palatable, there were concerns about the palatability of the food served at the facility identified during the initial pool interviews, and there were grievances filed by residents about the food served at the facility. Resident identifiers: 2, 26, 40, 63, and 72. Findings Included: On 3/17/25 at 10:41 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 2. Resident 2 stated that most of the time the food served at the facility tasted bad. On 3/17/25 at 11:01 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 40. Resident 40 stated that sometimes the food was not so bad, but other times it was so bad he would rather not eat. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases. Specifically, for 1 out of 38 sampled residents, a resident's feeding tube was observed to be on the floor and not capped while not in use. Additionally, facility staff did not wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing high contact care on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Resident identifier: 238.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the residents' status. Specifically, for 2 out of 38 sampled residents, the facility indicated on the resident assessment that the residents did not have a serious mental illness despite the residents' Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level II assessments that documented the residents had a serious mental illness. Resident identifiers: 45 and 68. Findings Included: 1. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, paranoid schizophrenia, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and major depressive disorder recurrent moderate. Resident 45's medical record was reviewed on 3/17/25 through 3/20/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents received the appropriate treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision and hearing abilities. Specifically, for 2 out of 38 sampled residents, a resident with impaired vision had a referral sent to the eye doctor in January and the resident had not see the eye doctor. In addition, a resident with vision and hearing concerns . Resident identifiers: 2 and 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, for 1 out of 38 sampled residents, a resident that was a high fall risk did not have interventions implemented to prevent future falls. Resident identifier: 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary drugs without adequate monitoring. Specifically, for 1 out of 38 sampled residents, nursing staff administered blood pressure lowering medications to the resident when the resident's blood pressure was outside of the parameters specified by a physician's order. Resident identifier: 40. Findings Included: Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, essential primary hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, mixed hyperlipidemia, and severe morbid obesity due to excess calories. Resident 40's medical record was reviewed on 3/17/25 through 3/20/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the residents were free of any significant medication errors. Specifically, for 1 out of 38 sampled residents, a resident's physician order for oxycodone was transcribed to the wrong resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and that resident received five doses of the medication. Resident identifier: 60.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide or obtain outside resources for routine or emergency dental services to meet the needs of the resident. Specifically, for 1 out of 38 sampled residents, a resident was not provided dental services for missing teeth. Resident identifier: 2.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 45 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that each resident received the food and drink that accommodated the resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences. Specifically, a resident with food allergies to fish and shellfish was served a Krabbycake and needed Benadryl administered. Resident identifier: 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the dish machine was not meeting the required temperature to sanitize the dishes and there were no chemical strips in the kitchen to monitor the sanitizer in the dish machine or the sanitation buckets. Additionally, food items in the freezer and dry storage room were open to air.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, for 4 of 45 residents, the facility did not ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. Specifically, a resident did not have a physician order for the use of oxygen, and residents did not have properly labeled oxygen tubing. Resident identifiers: 6, 39, 51, and 69.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored and secured in locked compartments. Specifically, medication was left unattended in a medication cup on top of an unlocked medication cart within reach of other residents and a blue pill was observed to be on the floor during medication pass.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, for 9 out of 45 sampled resident, residents complained of food quality and a test tray not attractive or palatable. Resident identifiers: 8, 15, 28, 31, 34, 39, 47, 55 and 66.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 14 out of 45 sampled residents, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, hand hygiene was not performed between residents who were being assisted with eating or performed after delivering lunch trays between multiple resident rooms. In addition, after a staff member tested positive for COVID-19 and source control was not implemented. Resident identifiers: 3, 7, 9, 17, 22, 33, 35, 47, 51, 58, 62, 67, 68 and 124.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 45 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, a resident was complaining that food was getting caught in a tooth that had been extracted. There was no monitoring documented after the resident had the tooth extraction. Resident identifier: 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 45 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, a resident that was assessed as requiring supervision while smoking was observed to be smoking unsupervised. Resident identifier: 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 1 of 45 sampled resident, the facility did not ensure that a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment. Specifically, a resident's tube feeding was not infusing at the prescribed infusion rate. Resident identifier: 51.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, for 1 of 45 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors. Specifically, an order for Furosemide 40 mg (milligrams) was not discontinued when the physician reduced the dose to 20 mg, resulting the resident receiving 60 mg on two separate days. Resident identifier: 39.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 1 of 45 sampled resident, that the facility did not ensure each resident received and the facility provided food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs. Specifically, a resident was observed to be coughing after drinking liquids during two different meal times. Resident identifier:
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent an instance of sexual abuse between resident 269 and resident 270, and neglected to provide the supervision necessary to prevent the elopement of resident 17. The facility's failure to prevent the sexual abuse of resident 270 was determined to be noncompliant and constituted immediate jeopardy. Additionally, due to resident 17's assessed impaired cognitive status and known wandering behavior, the facility's lack of a coordinated plan to supervise the resident's whereabouts was also determined to be noncompliant and constituted immediate jeopardy. However, based on the facility's corrective actions and a review of the facility's current compliance in this regulatory area, the deficiency was determined to be past noncompliance. Resident identifiers: 17, 269, and 270. Corrective Action: Elopement: [DATE]: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences. Specifically, for 1 out of 45 sampled residents, a resident who sustained a right humerus fracture was not offered a shoulder immobilizer daily as ordered to help mitigate pain. Resident identifier: 58. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wrote3. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility initially on 8/2/19, and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes with neuropathy, morbid obesity, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and depressive disorder. Resident 21's medical record was reviewed between 3/11/24 and 3/21/24. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed resident 21 had a BIMS score of 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident 21's care plan focus area, initiated on 2/16/24, revealed, [resident's name redacted] has expressed a need for physical intimacy, such as kissing other residents. He has a dx [diagnosis] of dementia and does not have the capacity to consent to physical intimacy. The goal was, Residents psychosocial need for physical touch/intimacy will be met safely through review date. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide necessary services to maintain good nutrition for a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living. Specifically, for 1 out of 45 sampled residents, a resident that required assistance with eating waited 35 minutes to get assistance by staff after the meal was served to the resident. Resident identifier: 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, for 1 out of 45 sampled residents, a resident was admitted to the facility on hospice and was not assessed upon admission, provided the appropriate medications, and was not transferred until the following day to the memory care unit after family requested. Resident identifier: 119.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents goals, and preferences. Specifically, for 1 out of 45 sampled residents, a resident that required continuous oxygen therapy was observed without their oxygen nasal cannula on and out of reach. Staff were observed to not apply the oxygen nasal cannula for the resident. Resident identifier: 59.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined, for 2 out of 33 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that each resident was free from abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of resident property. Specifically, a female resident reported that a male resident had grabbed her breast without her consent. The deficiency identified was determined to be at a HARM level. Resident identifiers: 43 and 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was identified that the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, to the State Survey Agency. Specifically, an entity report for 3 separate allegations of abuse were not submitted to the State Survey Agency within 2 hours after the allegations were identified. Resident identifiers: 11, 43, and 52.
Inspectors wrote2. Resident 43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of intracranial injury with loss of consciousness, hemiplegia, Alzheimer's disease, osteoarthritis, major depressive disorder, insomnia, benign prostatic hypertrophy, and history of malignant neoplasm of the skin. Resident 43's medical record was reviewed 9/11/23 through 9/18/23. On 8/23/23, the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment documented a BIMS score of 00, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment. The assessment documented that resident 43 was an extensive 1 person assist for bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Review of the resident 43's progress notes revealed the following: a. [...]
10 fire safety citations on file: 4 on August 21, 2025, 3 on March 20, 2025, 3 on September 16, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 16, 2024 | Fine | $12,035 |
| September 16, 2024 | Payment Denial | 4 days from October 18, 2024 |
| March 21, 2024 | Fine | $16,801 |
| September 18, 2023 | Fine | $40,055 |
| September 18, 2023 | Payment Denial | 1 days from November 8, 2023 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Utah | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.71 | 4.09 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.05 | 1.25 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.34 | 3.58 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.35 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.31 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 60.2% | 50.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 48.4% | 40.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.09 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 3.86 on weekdays and 3.34 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.30 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 | 1.05 | 3.86 | 3.34 | 0.8% | 0 of 90 | 84 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.34 | 1.00 | 3.47 | 3.02 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.45 | 1.04 | 3.61 | 3.05 | 1.0% | 0 of 92 | 93 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.30 | 1.14 | 3.44 | 2.96 | 0.6% | 0 of 91 | 93 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Utah, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.91 | 1.11 | 4.10 | 3.44 | 2.8% | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utah, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $19.15 | $17.81 to $21.32 | 12,260 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.40 | $25.71 to $35.86 | 1,680 |
| Registered nurses | $40.67 | $38.49 to $50.54 | 27,420 |
| 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 | Utah | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.5 | 11.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.9 | 15.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.9 | 14.2 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for South Ogden Post-Acute (cascades at South Ogden)'s Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (43.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Utah: 40 better, 0 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. 33 eligible stays.
11.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Utah: 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. 56 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Utah: 2 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. 20 eligible stays.
43.3% this home
Median of homes: Utah63.5% · 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. 30 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Utah0.0% · 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.
2.9% this home
Median of homes: Utah1.3% · 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.
95.5% this home
Median of homes: Utah100.0% · 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. 22 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: BEAVER VALLEY HOSPITAL. CMS links this home to Cascades Healthcare, a group of 19 nursing homes averaging 2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| McSpadden, Darin | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Langford, Scott | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/18/2018 | |
| McSpadden, Darin | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/18/2018 | |
| Fullmer, Chad | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| McSpadden, Darin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/18/2018 | |
| Beaver Valley Hospital | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/29/2025 | |
| Cascades Healthcare LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/28/2025 | |
| Fullmer, Chad | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| McSpadden, Darin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 |
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 Utah. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.