Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #66 out of 97 facilities in Utah and #23 out of 35 in Salt Lake County, it falls within the bottom half of options available. The facility is currently showing signs of improvement, with issues decreasing from 4 in 2024 to 2 in 2025. However, staffing is a major weakness, with a rating of just 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 74%, which is significantly higher than the state average. Additionally, the facility incurred $33,275 in fines, which is concerning as it ranks higher than 87% of similar facilities in Utah. The nursing home has good RN coverage, exceeding 93% of state facilities, which is a positive aspect since RNs can identify issues that CNAs might miss. However, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident choking on food that was not prepared according to their dietary needs, which required emergency medical attention. Additionally, a resident reported feeling unwell for two days but had not been tested for COVID-19, despite being in a hallway where COVID-positive residents were located. Overall, while there are some strengths, these critical incidents and staffing issues raise significant concerns for families considering this facility for loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Utah
- #66/97
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 74% turnover. Very high, 26 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $33,275 in fines. Higher than 93% of Utah facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 57 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Utah. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 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
Below Utah average (3.3)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
28pts above Utah avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
26 points above Utah average of 48%
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 19 sampled residents, the facility must obtain laboratory servi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not establish an infection prevention and control program d...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
4 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 2 of 12 sampled residents that the facility did not ensure that the ...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 12 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatme...
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 interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 12 sampled residents, that in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment the facility failed to have evid...
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
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 3 of 12 sampled residents were free of significant medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview it was determined, for 1 of 20 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that all...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 and record review it was determined, for 1 of 20 sampled residents, that in response to allegations of abuse,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 18 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the following diagnosis of chronic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that medication error rates were not 5 percent o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident 4 was admitted to 6/8/23 with the following diagnosis that included metabolic encephalopathy, acute respiratory fail...
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 did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, food items in the re...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On 12/20/23 at 8:00 AM, an observation of resident 35 was conducted. Resident 35 was in his room laying on his bed, he told r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
4 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 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 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 4 out of 13 sampled residents, that the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 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
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 4 out of 13 sampled residents, that the facility failed...
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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee developed and implemented systematic ...
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
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility did not employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and n...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
1 deficiency
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 and record review, it was determined, that in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mis...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, it was determined the facility did not ensure that residents maintained acceptable parame...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0807
(Tag F0807)
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 it was determined the facility did not ensure each resident received drinks, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 7 was initially admitted the facility on 7/27/21, and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with medical diagnoses t...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordan...
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?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $33,275 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $33,275 in fines. Higher than 94% of Utah facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (11/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Utah, 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 Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing Staffed?
CMS rates Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 74%, which is 28 percentage points above the Utah average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. 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 Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 20 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing?
Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by BEAVER VALLEY HOSPITAL, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 42 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in West Valley City, Utah.
How Does Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing Compare to Other Utah Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Utah, Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (74%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing 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 Utah. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing is high. At 74%, the facility is 28 percentage points above the Utah average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing Ever Fined?
Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing has been fined $33,275 across 5 penalty actions. This is below the Utah average of $33,412. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation And Nursing on Any Federal Watch List?
Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing 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.