MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Maple Springs of Palmer has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor reputation in care quality. Ranked #17 out of 20 facilities in Alaska and #2 out of 2 in Matanuska-Susitna County, this places them in the bottom half of available options. The facility's trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 17 in 2025. While staffing is a strength, boasting a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 38%, which is better than the state average, the facility has been fined $96,596, a troubling figure higher than 90% of Alaska facilities. Notable incidents include a resident suffering a compound fracture due to improper securement during transport and another resident being harmed after using scissors found in their room, highlighting serious safety lapses that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Alaska
- #17/20
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Alaska's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $96,596 in fines. Higher than 100% of Alaska facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 81 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Alaska nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 41 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Alaska average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Alaska average (3.5)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Alaska avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 41 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to immediately report an allegation of verbal abuse to the State Survey Agency in accordance with CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) S483.12 (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to respond to an allegation of verbal abuse for 1 resident (2), out of 4 sampled residents reviewed, in accordance with CFR (Code of Federal ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete skin assessments for one of six s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one of three reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report injuries of unknown origin and a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of the manufacturer's manual, the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
10 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was free of acciden...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#48), out 15 sampled residents, was provided care in a manner that promoted dignity and respect. Speci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure reasonable accommodation of needs, of always having a call light within reach, was maintained for 1 resident (#39), ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure care plans were individualized to meet the communication needs for 1 resident (#34), out of 15 sampled residents. Sp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to update and revise the care plan for 2 residents (#'s 47 and 54), out of 15 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control progra...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had the appropriate skill sets to administer medications accurately for 1 resident (#8), out of 9 residents observed f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure: 1) concentrations of kitchen sanitizing sol...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a produce wash solution dispenser was in operating condition. This failed practice placed 57 residents that received...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0836
(Tag F0836)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure state laws were followed regarding posting variance decisions. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure variance decisions were ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure: 1) monthly medication regimen reviews (MRR) were completed for 5 residents (#'s 2, 3, 14, 16, and 29), out of 5 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medical products were removed and replaced from the second-floor medical emergency code cart (crash cart/eme...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1) store food in proper sanitary condition; and 2)...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure notice of the availability of the State inspection results were posted in an area of the facility that was prominent...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate staffing data for the 4th quarter of 2023 (July to September 2023) was reported to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment for 1 resident (#1), out of 5 sampled residents, was free of accident hazards. Specificall...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was individualized for 1 resident (#1) out of 5 sampled residents. Specifically, the resident's histor...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on record review, interview, and observation the facility failed to identify and implement safe application, as well as,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
16 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse was reported to the facility administration and the State agency within the 24-hour mandated timeframe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that an allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated for 1 resident (#5), out of a census of 39 residents. This faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 (#'s 31; 139; and 140) of 4 discharged records reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice with flushing a PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy) tube (a flexible feeding...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure communication with the dialysis clinic for 1 resident (#6), out of 2 dialysis residents sampled, regarding a significant event. Sp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure duplicative medications, ordered for constipation, were administered per facility protocol for 1 resident (#29) out of 5 residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not 5% or greater. During the Medication Administration Task, the facility failed to c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure expired products were removed from use. Spec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a culture where residents were treated with dignity and respect for 5 residents (#'s 283; 133; 25; 12; and 286) out ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) provide quarterly statements of personal fund accounts to 3 residents (#'s 6; 10; and 26) and/or their representatives, out of 3 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that 8 residents' rights to privacy (#s 1; 4; 8; 21; 23; 29; 30; and 101) were maintained out of a census of 39 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored under proper sanitary conditions. This failed practice placed the residents (from a total census of 39) who ate chic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure acceptable professional standards of infection prevention and control were followed. Specifically, the facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0574
(Tag F0574)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure information regarding residents' legal rights for all pe...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to 1) ensure the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage [NOMNC] form was delivered to 1 resident (#3) or the resident representative, out of 5 Bene...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
.
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the daily total number and the actual hours for resident care per shift worked by the Certified Nurse Aides (CNA), Licensed Practical ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 38% turnover. Below Alaska's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $96,596 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 41 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $96,596 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Alaska. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (11/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Maple Springs Of Palmer's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Alaska, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Maple Springs Of Palmer Staffed?
CMS rates MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Alaska average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Maple Springs Of Palmer?
State health inspectors documented 41 deficiencies at MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 32 with potential for harm, and 6 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Maple Springs Of Palmer?
MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by MAPLE SPRINGS LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 67 certified beds and approximately 65 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PALMER, Alaska.
How Does Maple Springs Of Palmer Compare to Other Alaska Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Alaska, MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.5, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maple Springs Of Palmer?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Maple Springs Of Palmer Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Alaska. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Maple Springs Of Palmer Stick Around?
MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for Alaska nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Maple Springs Of Palmer Ever Fined?
MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER has been fined $96,596 across 5 penalty actions. This is above the Alaska average of $34,045. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Maple Springs Of Palmer on Any Federal Watch List?
MAPLE SPRINGS OF PALMER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.