220 South Division Ave, Sandpoint, ID 83864 · Bonner County · (208) 265-4514
73 certified beds, about 67 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1973
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 135055 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 27, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Idaho average is 10.3, the national average 9.2).
Of 29 health citations since January 2019, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $40,918 in the last three years; the largest was $40,918, and the latest is dated May 6, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.47 hours per resident per day, against 4.04 across Idaho and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.54 of those hours.
64.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Idaho average 50.3%).
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 29 health citations on file.
Inspectors wrote2. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including intrahepatic (within the liver) bile duct (small tubes that transport bile to the small intestine) cancer. Resident #27's record documented a PASRR Level II was completed on 4/18/24. Resident #27's admission MDS assessment section A1500 dated 4/24/24, documented she did not have a PASRR Level II evaluation. Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments included correct assessment information. This was true for 6 of 6 residents (#27, #35, #37, #38, #47, and #57) whose MDS records were reviewed for accuracy. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if residents were not assessed and/or monitored due to inaccurate assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were routinely provided nourishing evening snacks. This was true for 5 of 7 resident's (#5, #26, #31, #56, and #115) who attended the resident council discussion with surveyors. This failure created the potential for residents to experience hunger between meals, increased fatigue, weight loss, and poor quality of sleep.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the resident's refrigerators were cleaned, and expired spices were discarded. These deficiencies had the potential to affect the 59 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination of food and adverse health outcomes, including food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention practices were maintained when the facility failed to offer hand hygiene to residents before their meals were served. This was true for 7 of 9 residents (#6, #9, #36, #37, #46, #47, and #50) eating in the Lodge dining room and 3 of 6 resident's (#12, #38, and #39) observed eating in their rooms. This failed practice had the potential for negative outcomes by exposing residents to the risk of infection and cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' right to be treated with respect and dignity was upheld for 1 of 4 resident (Resident #1) who required assistance with their meals. This deficient practice resulted in a resident not being fed in a dignified manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents exercised their right to formulate an Advance Directive. This was true for 2 of 15 residents (#37 and #38) whose records were reviewed. This failed practice created the potential for an adverse outcome if the resident's wishes were not followed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident representative, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents had a homelike environment. This was true for 1 of 1 resident's (Resident #16) whose room was observed to have a wall in disrepair. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial harm if Resident #16 was not provided a homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide hospital transfer paperwork for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #18) when they were discharged to the hospital. This deficient practice created the potential for Resident #18 to experience harm if the receiving hospital was not provided current medical documentation when he was transferred for emergency medical care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided notice of bed-hold and return policy and the Ombudsman advocate for residents was not informed of their transfer. This was true for 2 of 4 residents (#18, and #54) whose records were reviewed for discharge documentation. This failure placed the residents at risk for unnecessary psychosocial distress if they were unaware they could return to the facility following a hospitalization or therapeutic leave and the Ombudsman was not made aware a resident may require an advocate while out of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide a copy or summary of the baseline care plan to residents and/or their representative. This was true for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #115) reviewed for baseline care plan. This failure placed Resident #115 and/or his representative at risk of not being informed and having input in his care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to physician's order and professional standards of practice. This was true for 2 of 5 residents (#23 and #41) whose medications administration were observed. This deficient practice created the potential for Resident #41 to develop a yeast infection when he did not rinse his mouth after using his inhaler. Resident #23 had the potential of not receiving the full benefit of his medication from incorrect dosage administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician's order to provide non-pharmacological intervention were offered to residents prior to administration of their as needed narcotic pain medications. This was true for 3 of 3 residents ( #22, #54 and #115) reviewed for pain medications. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if the residents were overmedicated when their pain may have responded to nonpharmacological interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from unnecessary medications. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident #22 was continually prescribed of cough medication without clear indication and in excessive duration. This deficient practice had the potential for harm if Resident #22 received medications that may result in negative outcomes without clear indication of need.
Inspectors wroteBased on license and certification review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nursing staff were licensed/certified within the state where they provided care. This was true for 1 of 3 nursing staff (Staff #1) whose licenses/certification were reviewed and had the potential to affect all 61 residents in the facility. This failure created the potential for harm if residents received inappropriate care due to a nursing staff lacking the credentials to provide nursing care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, review of the State Agency's Long-Term Care Reporting Portal, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical and verbal abuse by staff. This was true for 2 of 3 residents (#3 and #37) who were reviewed for abuse. These deficient practices placed the safety of Resident #3 and Resident #37 and all other residents residing in the facility at risk for immediate jeopardy of serious harm, impairment or death.
Inspectors wroteBased record review, review of the State Survey Agency's Long-Term Care Reporting Portal, I&A reports, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' care plans were followed to prevent falls. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #16) reviewed for falls. This resulted in harm to Resident #16 when he fell and sustained a calcaneal (heel) fracture while being assisted by one staff during his pericare.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to meet the regulation requirements for frequency of QA meetings. This has the potential to negatively affect all residents in the facility if quality deficiencies throughout the facility were not identified and responded timely and appropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 12 hours of in-service education per year for 3 of 25 CNAs (CNA #7, CNA #8, and CNA #9) reviewed for sufficient and competent CNA staffing. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from staff who are not adequately trained in competencies to meet residents' needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure to respect and maintain a residents' dignity. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #12) reviewed for respect and dignity. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial harm if Resident #12 experienced embarrassment or lack of self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, observation, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the interdisciplinary team had determined it was appropriate for a resident to self-administer medications for 2 of 6 residents (#39 and #52) reviewed for self-administration of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a resident's decision to leave the facility against medical advice. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #62) reviewed for discharge. This deficient practice placed Resident #62 at risk of harm due to lack of physician input or involvement.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with an Advance Beneficiary Notice (ABN) when their Medicare Part A benefits ended. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #19) reviewed for an ABN. This failure created the potential for Resident #19 and his representative to experience financial and psychological distress when they were not informed of their potential financial liability to continue services.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of potential abuse to the State Survey Agency within 2 hours. This affected 1 of 3 residents (Resident #37) who were reviewed for abuse/neglect. This failure resulted in Resident #37's allegation of verbal abuse not being acted on in a timely manner, investigated, and measures implemented to protect residents during the investigation, which placed all residents in the facility at risk of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #37) reviewed for abuse. This failure subjected Resident #37 and other residents in the facility to ongoing abuse without detection.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff and resident interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement a restorative nursing program for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #13) reviewed for restorative nursing services. This deficient practice created the potential for Resident #13 to experience a decline in range of motion (ROM).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 12) reviewed for standards of practice. This deficient practice placed Resident #12 at risk of neck and back discomfort when his head was not supported.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the cleanliness of a nebulizer (a small machine that turns liquid medicine into a mist that can be easily inhaled) mouthpiece was maintained when not in use. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for respiratory care. This created the potential for respiratory infections due to growth of pathogens (organisms that cause illness) in respiratory treatment equipment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the failed to ensure professional standards of practice were met for monitoring the effectiveness of residents' medications. This was true for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #49) whose medications were reviewed. This deficient practice created the potential for Resident #49 to experience adverse reactions or side effects due to lack of appropriate monitoring of his medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure expired over the counter medications were removed from the medication carts. This failed practice created the potential for residents to receive expired medications with decreased efficacy.
19 fire safety citations on file: 3 on May 6, 2024, 16 on January 31, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2024 | Fine | $40,918 |
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 | Idaho | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.47 | 4.04 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.54 | 0.86 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.18 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.13 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.79 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 64.1% | 50.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 40.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.45 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 4.59 on weekdays and 4.18 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 29.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.52 in April to June 2025 to 4.47 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 | 4.47 | 0.54 | 4.59 | 4.18 | 29.1% | 0 of 90 | 67 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.48 | 0.60 | 4.62 | 4.11 | 31.8% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.24 | 0.64 | 4.44 | 3.74 | 41.8% | 0 of 92 | 58 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.52 | 0.56 | 4.76 | 3.91 | 35.1% | 0 of 91 | 62 |
| 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 | 22.9 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.4 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.3 | 16.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 34.3 | 20.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.8 | 17.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Valley Vista Care Center of Sandpoint's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.4% 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. 38 eligible stays.
10.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Idaho: 3 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 44 eligible stays.
6.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Idaho: 1 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 29 eligible stays.
48.0% 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. 25 residents counted.
2.9% 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. 34 residents counted.
6.3% 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. 34 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: 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. 6 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: VALLEY VISTA CARE CORPORATION.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cowin, William | Corporate director | Individual | 08/03/2016 | |
| Goodall, Tom | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2021 | |
| Hayes, Donna | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2021 | |
| McGreal, Heidi | Corporate director | Individual | 10/26/1998 | |
| Powell, Sabrina | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2024 | |
| Ryan, Doug | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2020 | |
| Spooner, Claudia | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2013 | |
| Wilks, Kasey | Corporate director | Individual | 03/15/1999 | |
| Woodin, Cheri | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2019 | |
| Lloyd, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/17/2019 | |
| Valley Vista Care Corporation | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/30/1999 | |
| Lambert, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Meza, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2018 | |
| Lambert, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Meza, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2018 |
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.