SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Springs at St. Andrews Village in Aurora, Colorado has a Trust Grade of B+, which indicates it is above average and recommended for families considering long-term care. It ranks #45 out of 208 facilities in Colorado, placing it in the top half, and #5 out of 20 in Arapahoe County, meaning only four local options are better. The facility is improving, with a decrease in issues from six in 2022 to five in 2024. Staffing has an average rating of 3 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 52%, slightly above the state average, suggesting some staff consistency but room for improvement. Notably, there have been no fines, which is a positive sign, and the facility has more RN coverage than 97% of state facilities, ensuring quality care. However, there are areas of concern. A serious incident involved a resident losing significant weight due to a lack of timely intervention and communication with the family regarding their health status. Additionally, there were concerns about staff training, as most CNAs did not complete the required annual training, and there were medication administration delays for one resident. Overall, while there are strengths in RN coverage and no financial penalties, families should consider the identified weaknesses in staff training and specific resident care incidents.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Colorado
- #45/208
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Colorado facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 49 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Colorado. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Colorado avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Mar 2024
5 deficiencies
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 observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#25) of five residents out of 19 sample residents rece...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to conduct yearly certified nurse aide (CNA) performance reviews and provide training based on the outcome of the reviews for three out of fiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored and labeled properly...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure certified nurse aides (CNA) received the required 12 hours of annual in-service training to ensure continued competence.
Specifical...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0691
(Tag F0691)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to provide ostomy care to one resident (#122) of one resident reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of unnecessary psychotropic medica...
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
Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure drug and biologics were labeled and stored correctly in one of three units.
Specifically the facility failed to:
-Ensu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure immediate physician notification for one (#122) of three r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care in accordance with professional standard...
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 observations and interviews the facility failed to establish and maintain infection control designed to provide a safe, sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmissi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
5 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#17) of three residents reviewed for nutritional statu...
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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for one out of three ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two out of three units, and two (#14 and #25) residents rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#21, #24, #25) of four residents reviewed for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to consistently serve food that was palatable and attra...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Colorado.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Colorado facilities.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Springs At St Andrews Village, The's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Colorado, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Springs At St Andrews Village, The Staffed?
CMS rates SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Colorado average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Springs At St Andrews Village, The?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 15 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Springs At St Andrews Village, The?
SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE 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 THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 58 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in AURORA, Colorado.
How Does Springs At St Andrews Village, The Compare to Other Colorado Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Colorado, SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Springs At St Andrews Village, The?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Springs At St Andrews Village, The Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Colorado. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Springs At St Andrews Village, The Stick Around?
SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Colorado average of 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 Springs At St Andrews Village, The Ever Fined?
SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Springs At St Andrews Village, The on Any Federal Watch List?
SPRINGS AT ST ANDREWS VILLAGE, THE 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.