501 Thornton Pkwy, Thornton, CO 80229 · Adams County · (303) 452-6101
101 certified beds, about 81 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1984
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 065193 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 19, 2024, inspectors cited 21 health deficiencies (the Colorado average is 8.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 62 health citations since July 2022, 7 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $21,483 in the last three years; the largest was $12,058, and the latest is dated December 19, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.99 hours per resident per day, against 3.72 across Colorado and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.67 of those hours.
50.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Colorado average 47.1%).
CMS links it to Long Peak Operating Company, an affiliated group of 8 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 62 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#1 and #4) of five residents reviewed for accident hazards received adequate supervision out of 14 sample residents. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of neurocognitive disorder, brain injury with loss of consciousness and arthritis. According to documentation, Resident #1 had four falls from 6/6/25 to 7/9/25. Two falls required evaluation and treatment at the hospital emergency department. The fall on 6/21/25 caused a pelvic fracture, and after a fall on 7/9/25, the resident was monitored and was allowed to go on an activity trip to a local restaurant for lunch on the same day. While at the restaurant, the resident had another fall on 7/9/25 and was transferred to the emergency department. The hospital physician determined Resident #1 had fainted due to dehydration. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#10, #11 and #14) of 14 residents reviewed for grievances were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve a grievance out of 14 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to respond to grievances from Resident #10, Resident #11 and Resident #14 when they reported to facility staff that room temperatures were uncomfortable and hot.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for one (#1) of two residents reviewed for medication documentation out of 14 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1's electronic medical record (EMR) contained complete and accurate documentation related to the administration of the resident's scheduled levetiracetam (a medication used to treat epilepsy, a seizure disorder) medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were kept free from abuse for two (#2 and #5) of three residents reviewed for abuse out of six sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Protect Resident #2 and Resident #5 from sexual abuse by Resident #3; and, -Ensure staff report an incident of sexual abuse in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure dishes were sanitized correctly in the three compartment sink; and, -Ensure safe and appropriate storage of food items in the walk-in refrigerator.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented in order to facilitate improvement in the lives of nursing home residents through continuous attention to quality of care, quality of life and resident safety. Specifically, the quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) program committee failed to operate a quality assurance (QA) program in a manner to identify and address concerns related to quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infection. Specifically the facility failed to: -Ensure staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) while changing a resident's bedding who was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP); -Ensure the water management program (WMP) identified specific areas where legionella could grow and spread and decided where and how to monitor control measures to prevent legionella and waterborne pathogen growth and document the monitoring; -Ensure staff followed appropriate hand hygiene during resident care and ensure shared vital signs equipment was sanitized between use; [...]
Inspectors wroteIV. Resident #6 A. Resident status Resident #6, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2024 CPO, diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease, borderline personality disorder and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The 10/29/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15. She was dependent on staff for showers. C. Resident interview Resident #6 was interviewed on 12/11/24 at 3:15 p.m. Resident #6 said she had requested a shower three times a week. The resident said she typically received her shower on Sundays, however she did not always receive the other two. She said it was related to staffing. C. Record review The care plan last updated on 7/30/24 identified the resident had a self care deficit related to activity intolerance, morbid obesity and COPD. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents' personal funds accounts were managed adequately for the facility and accessible to the residents for four (#23, #6, #46 and #47) of four residents out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure residents were able to access their personal funds accounts during banking hours, after hours and on the weekends.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment for 14 out of 65 resident rooms. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Residents were provided clean washcloths and hand towels in their rooms on the East and [NAME] units; -Resident #6's closet was cleaned timely; and, -The clogged toilet in a resident's bathroom was cleaned timely and appropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision during use of assistive devices to keep residents free from safety hazards for three (#9, #26 and #24) of seven residents out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure care planned fall interventions were utilized consistently for Resident #9; -Ensure foot pedals were attached to Resident #9 and Resident #26's wheelchairs when facility staff were pushing the residents in their wheelchairs; -Ensure Resident #26 was transferred appropriately from her chair to her wheelchair using a gait belt (a device used to help prevent falls); and, -Ensure Resident #24 was assessed appropriately for safe smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medications in two of two medication storage rooms and two of four medication storage carts. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Dispose of medications from the medication storage refrigerators and medication carts after residents had been discharged ; -Ensure medications were labeled with dates opened; -Ensure expired medications were removed and discarded from medication carts and storage refrigerators; and, -Maintain temperature logs for the medication refrigerators.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable and well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences for two (#48 and #61) of six residents out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide a balanced menu with a variety; and, -Provide alternate items of preference for Resident #61 and #48 when requested. I. Provide a balanced menu with a variety of starch options A. Facility policy and procedure The Resident Food Preferences policy, revised July 2017 was provided by the director of clinical services (DOCS) on 12/18/24 at 9:42 a.m. The policy read in pertinent part, Individual food preferences will be assessed upon admission and communicated to the interdisciplinary team. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents consistently received food prepared by methods that conserved nutritive value, were palatable in taste, appearance and temperature. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the residents' food was palatable in taste, texture, appearance and temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#13) of one resident out of 41 sample residents was compensated for paid services at or above prevailing rates. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #13 was paid in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of verbal abuse for two (#37 and #21) of five residents reviewed for abuse out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of verbal abuse for Resident #37 and #21.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were permitted to remain in the facility and not transfer or discharge for one (#216) of three residents out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide Resident #216 with an appropriate discharge process.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to permit a resident to return to the facility following a facility-initiated transfer to the hospital for one (#216) of three residents reviewed for discharge out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to reassess Resident #216's status at the time the resident sought to return to the facility after a facility-initiated transfer to the hospital, and directed the hospital that the resident was not allowed to return to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for two (#32 and #48) of eight residents reviewed out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #32, who was dependent on staff for bathing, received her scheduled showers. -Ensure Resident #48, who was blind, received meal assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#9) of four residents reviewed for activities of 41 sample residents received an ongoing program of activities designed to meet needs and interests, and promote physical, medical and psychosocial well-being. Specifically the facility failed to offer and provide a personalized activity program for Resident #9.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#24) of two residents out of 41 sample residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure treatment was provided to Resident #24's skin injury in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper treatment and services to maintain vision abilities for one (#23) of seven residents reviewed for vision services out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #23's new glasses were obtained in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who required dialysis received dialysis services consistent with professional standards of practice for one (#1) of two residents out of 41 sample residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Consistently and accurately monitor pre- and post-dialysis weights for Resident #1; -Consistently document Resident #1's post-dialysis weight from the dialysis communication form in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR); and, -Ensure communication forms between the facility and the dialysis center were obtained consistently and completed thoroughly for Resident #1.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for two (#6 and #44) of six residents reviewed for medication errors out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Order and administer the correct medication (hydroxyzine) for Resident #6's itching, and not the incorrect medication (hydralazine), for high blood pressure. -Ensure Resident #44 did not receive excessive dosage of acetaminophen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to meet all the requirements for the provision of hospice care for one (#9) of two residents out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the hospice agency notes regarding Resident #9's care were easily accessible to the facility staff in an attempt to effectively coordinate care with the hospice agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#1, #2 and #3) of five residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice out of five sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to administer pain medications in a timely manner per the physician orders for Resident #1, Resident #2 and Resident #3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide four of four residents (#3, #4, #5, and #12) out of 12 sample residents, with the necessary treatment and services to manage pressure injuries and minimize pressure injury risks. RESIDENT #3 Record review and interview revealed Resident #3 was hospitalized seven times and readmitted to the facility six times between January and June 2024. During this time, the resident developed pressure injuries to his sacrum, ischium, left and right heels, left ankle, and scrotum which ranged from stage 2 (partial thickness skin loss) to stage 4 (full-thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle), as well as osteomyelitis (inflammation of the bone due to infection) of the sacral wound. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from physical abuse for four (#7, #8, #9 and #10) of four residents reviewed for abuse out of 12 sample residents. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a history of mood disorder, depression and alcohol abuse. On 3/9/24 Resident #7 called certified nurse aide (CNA) #1, who was an agency CNA, a racial slur. CNA #1 went to Resident #7's bed, placed his forearm across the resident's left side and leaned on top of the resident. CNA #1 repeatedly told Resident #7 he needed to apologize for calling him a racial slur. CNA #1 then left the room. Resident #7 reported he cried out in pain all night following the incident. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented in order to facilitate improvement in the lives of nursing home residents through continuous attention to quality of care, quality of life, and resident safety. Specifically, the quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) program committee failed to identify and address concerns related to quality of life and quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#61 and #53) out of three residents reviewed out of 33 sample residents, as well as other facility residents, were protected from resident-to-resident abuse by Residents #54, #120, and #31. Residents #54 and #61 According to a sexual abuse investigation dated 8/8/23, Resident #61 reported Resident #54 had sexually assaulted her. Resident #54 had a known history of child abuse, was on the sex abuse registry due to an assault of an elderly person, and had recently gotten off parole for crimes he had committed in the past. A 4/12/23 behavioral assessment documented that facility staff reported Resident #54 had made inappropriate sexual comments since his admission on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed to meet the residents' nutritional needs. Specifically, the facility failed to follow the correct portion sizes to ensure adequate nutrition was provided to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to consistently serve food that was palatable and attractive. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable in taste, texture and appearance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure safe practices were implemented to prevent the potential contamination of food and spread of food-borne illness through proper kitchen sanitation procedures. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure appropriate use of gloves when handling ready-to-eat foods. I. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, revised January 2019, read in pertinent part, Employees prevent bare hand contact with ready-to-eat food by properly using suitable utensils such as deli tissue, spatulas, tongs, single-use gloves, or dispensing equipment. If used, single-use gloves shall be used for only one task, such as working with ready-to-eat food. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#14) out of 41 sample residents were compensated for paid services at or above prevailing rates. Specifically, the facility failed to for Resident #14: -Ensure the resident was paid a fair and decent wage for a therapeutic work program; -Ensure there was a care plan for the work program; -Ensure the contract matched what workload the resident performed; and, -Allowed the resident to work without a signed contract.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#170) of one resident reviewed out of 41 sample residents was provided personal privacy in her room. Specifically, the facility failed to provide a privacy curtain to ensure Resident #170 had privacy while in bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#1 and #53) residents reviewed of five sample residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Have a registered nurse assess Resident #1 after the fall; and, -Administer pain medications on time to Resident #53.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#15 and #6) of five residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide consistent bathing to maintain good personal hygiene for Resident #15 and Resident #6.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was as free from accident hazards as possible for one (#15) of five out of 41 sample residents. Record review revealed Resident #15 fell repeatedly. The facility failed to ensure effective interventions were developed, that care-planned interventions were implemented and that neurological checks were consistently initiated when the resident's falls were unwitnessed. I. Resident #15 A. Resident status Resident #15, under the age of 60, was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances, bipolar disease, and anxiety disorder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles in two out of four medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to label insulin pens with an open date and store them according to the manufacturer's recommendation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident was assisted in making transportation arrangements to and from appointments for two (#52 and #53) of two out of 41 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to assist Resident #52 and Resident #53 with transportation for ongoing outside medical appointments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure seven residents (#55, #45, #5, #1, #71, #21, and #130), out of a total sample of 47 residents, received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. Specifically: The facility failed to take steps to ensure the safety of three residents identified at risk for elopement and/or to require a WanderGuard (#55, #45, and #5) after Resident #55 eloped from the facility. Specifically: -Resident #55 eloped from the facility undetected on 7/10/22, and was discovered a block away from the facility by the police. Resident #55 wore a WanderGuard device, an electronic monitoring system that triggered should he exit the facility through a door armed with the WanderGuard system. Yet, on 7/10/22, the facility investigation revealed no alarm was heard by staff when the resident exited the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement interventions and provide appropriate treatments to prevent the development of pressure injuries for one (#65) of three residents reviewed for pressure injuries out of 47 sample residents. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for long term care due to the progression of dementia. The resident was admitted with intact skin and three weeks later, on 7/7/22, she was identified as having two unstageable pressure injuries. Upon admission, the facility identified multiple risk factors for the resident's development of pressure injuries. However, the facility failed to ensure Resident #65 received care and services to minimize her known risk factors and prevent the development of pressure injuries. Further, the facility failed to implement measures to promote healing of the pressure injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to address one resident's dementia care needs in a manner designed to address the resident's known behaviors and cognitive and physical limitations. This failure affected one out of five residents reviewed with dementia (#55), out of a total sample of 47 residents. The failure resulted in Resident #55's inability to achieve his highest level of physical, mental and psychosocial functioning. Record review revealed Resident #55 was severely cognitively impaired. He was known to wander daily, known to be at high risk for falls, and known to be at high risk to elope. His thought processes and memory were impaired, and he could not follow instructions. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to participate in the development and implementation of their person-centered plan of care for seven (#43, #11, #48, #16, #59, #21 and #30) of eight out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to invite and conduct regular care conferences to review the resident's plan of care with Resident #43, #11, #48, #16, #59, #21 and #30.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment for the residents on eight out of eight hallways. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure temperatures in the hallways and in resident rooms were in the safe range of 71 degrees F (Fahrenheit) and 81 degrees F.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure three (#39, #21 and #18) of four residents reviewed out of 47 sample residents for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) received appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve his or her abilities. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide Resident #39 bathing in accordance with their plan of care; -Ensure Resident #18 was transferred back to bed upon his request and timely incontience care; and, -Provide Resident #21 with nail care. Cross reference F676: the facility failed to ensure bathing was provided to dependent residents in accordance with their plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision abilities for three (#11, #30 and #60) of three residents out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Follow up on optometry services for Resident #11 timely; and, -Ensure optometry services were arranged for Resident #30 and Resident #60.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, in three out of four medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Label insulin pens with an open date and store them according to manufacturer's recommendation; and, -Label eye drops with an open date.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine or emergency dental services, as needed for three (#48, #30 and #21) of four out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure dental recommendations were followed up on timely for Resident #48 and Resident #30; and, -Provide dental services for Resident #21.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide therapeutic and mechanically altered diets consistent with physician orders for five residents on altered diet and one resident on altered texture out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Serve the appropriate main dish for residents on a consistent carbohydrate diet (CCD) renal, CCD two gram sodium, two gram sodium, or renal diet; and, -Prepare a dysphagia advanced diet texture correctly (an altered diet for residents with difficulty swallowing).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement, monitor and reevaluate its quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) program to ensure the unique care and services the facility provided were maintained at acceptable levels of performance and continuously improved. Specifically, the facility's QAPI program failed to systematically self-identify, investigate, analyze and correct problems relating to resident safety, staffing, and quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure care for residents was provided in a manner and in an environment that maintained or enhanced the residents' dignity and respect in full recognition of their individuality for one (#42) resident of four residents reviewed for dignity out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #42 was treated with respect and dignity by other residents. Resident #55 entered Resident #42 's room during a family visit and urinated on the floor. Cross-reference F744 for failure to provide dementia care for Resident #55's wandering into other resident rooms. I. Resident status Resident #42, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of the resident needs and preferences for two (#71 and #21) of three residents out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to -Ensure proper wheelchair positioning at the dining table for Resident #71; and, -Ensure Resident #21 was provided with a bed that was long enough to fit his height.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#43) out of 47 sample residents were compensated for paid services at or above prevailing rates. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #43 was paid a fair and decent wage for a therapeutic work program.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure two (#30 and #21) out of 47 sample residents were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide a resolution to Resident #30 filed grievance form; and, -Provide a resolution to Resident #21's voiced concern during the resident council meeting.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to take steps to protect one (#38) of three residents out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #38 was free from physical abuse from Resident #45, on two occasions, when Resident #45 acted with physical aggression towards Resident #38.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop an acute/baseline care plan for one (#43) reviewed for baseline care plans out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident involvement in the development, review and provide a copy to Resident #43 of the baseline care plan. Cross reference F553: the facility failed to invite and conduct care conferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to ensure two (#48 and #59) of eight residents reviewed for activities of daily living of 47 sample residents were provided appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their abilities. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #48 and Resident #59 received regular bathing in accordance with their plan of care. Cross reference F677: the facility failed to ensure bathing was provided to dependent residents in accordance with their plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#21 and #8) of five residents with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #21 received services to help prevent progression of a contracture to his left upper extremity; and, -Ensure Resident #8 received passive stretching to maintain range of motion in his contracted upper extremity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with a feeding tube received appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for one (#130) of one reviewed out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #130 received his tube feeding as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one out of three nurses were able to demonstrate skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs for one out of five nursing staff reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure competencies were completed annually for licensed practical nurse (LPN) #3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control and prevention program designed to provide a sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections in one out of three units. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Conduct proper hand hygiene when administering tube feed; -Administer medications in a sanitary manner; and, -Make sure oxygen tubing was clean prior to application.
49 fire safety citations on file: 10 on December 19, 2024, 11 on October 26, 2023, 28 on July 21, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 19, 2024 | Fine | $5,684 |
| June 20, 2024 | Fine | $12,058 |
| October 26, 2023 | Fine | $3,741 |
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 | Colorado | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 2.99 | 3.72 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.67 | 0.82 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.51 | 3.29 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.64 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.68 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.7% | 47.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 53.3% | 44.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.47 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 3.19 on weekdays and 2.51 on weekends, 21% 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 3.13 in April to June 2025 to 2.99 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 | 2.99 | 0.67 | 3.19 | 2.51 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 81 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.12 | 0.69 | 3.30 | 2.68 | 2.1% | 0 of 92 | 76 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.11 | 0.70 | 3.33 | 2.53 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 74 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.13 | 0.67 | 3.34 | 2.61 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 70 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Colorado, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.59 | 0.76 | 3.75 | 3.18 | 5.9% | 0.2% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.78 | $21.42 to $24.00 | 22,240 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.52 | $29.76 to $38.37 | 4,920 |
| Registered nurses | $48.20 | $40.67 to $52.37 | 54,490 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Colorado | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 13.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 13.3 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.4 | 20.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 35.2 | 20.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.6 | 12.1 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Thornton Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
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 51.5% · Colorado: 39 better, 8 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 12 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 10.7% · Colorado: 3 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 24 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% · Colorado: 4 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 14 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.
Median of homes: Colorado65.0% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 12 residents counted.
4.5% this home
Median of homes: Colorado0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 22 residents counted.
6.1% this home
Median of homes: Colorado0.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 22 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Colorado99.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 3 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: THORNTON CARE CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Long Peak Operating Company, a group of 8 nursing homes averaging 2.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thorton SNF Holding LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/01/2024 |
| Raskin, Chaim | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Beecan Health Co LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2024 | |
| Elya, Alan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Beecan Health Co LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2024 | |
| Dergance, Jeannae | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2024 | |
| Elya, Alan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2023 |
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 Colorado. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.