Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow has a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. It ranks #86 out of 97 facilities in Utah, placing it in the bottom half, and #30 out of 35 in Salt Lake County, meaning there are only a few facilities in the area that are better. The facility's trend is improving, as issues decreased from five in 2024 to one in 2025, but it still faced serious problems, including incidents of abuse where residents were not protected from known risks. Staffing is a relative strength with a 3/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 43%, which is lower than the state average, but the facility has faced $41,232 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance issues. Additionally, while RN coverage is average, there were critical incidents involving failure to report and prevent abuse, leading to immediate jeopardy situations for residents. Overall, families should weigh these serious weaknesses against the facility's slight improvements and staffing stability.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Utah
- #86/97
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near Utah's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $41,232 in fines. Lower than most Utah facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 64 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Utah nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 33 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below Utah average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Utah average (3.3)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Utah avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
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 33 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview, observation, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to its established infection prevention and control program. Specifically, a staff member was o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to assess 1 (Resident #74) of 10 sampled residents to ensure the resident was safe to ...
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 observation, interview, record review, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to develop a care plan for 1 (Resident #80) of 7 sampled residents who were dependent on respir...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. A review of Resident #98's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/01/2023 with diagnoses that included contracture of the muscle of the right upper arm and hemiplegia...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #91) of 10 residents receiving tube feeding received appropriate treatment and services to ...
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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to obtain a physician order for 1 (Resident #30) of 3 sampled residents receiving supplemental oxygen administrat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
1 deficiency
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environme...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
3 deficiencies
3 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on confidential and non-confidential interviews with administrative staff, therapy staff, licensed and unlicensed nursing ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 it was determined, for 1 of 9 sampled residents, that the facility failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
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 it was determined, for 1 of 9 sampled residents, that the facility failed to p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
4 deficiencies
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 3 of 6 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure each resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 3 of 6 sampled residents, that in response to allegations of abuse, ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 3 of 6 sampled residents, that in response to allegations of abuse, ...
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
Deficiency F0624
(Tag F0624)
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 6 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide and docu...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure each resident received adequate supervision...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 that residents who were unabl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record the review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
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 the facility did not provide routine and emergency drugs and biolo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
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, the facility did not ensure any irregularities reported by a pharmacist...
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 interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that a resident who used psychotropic drugs...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined, that the facility did not ensure that the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of actio...
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 observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not ensure each resident received and the facility provi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2020
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 46 sample residents, that the facility did not immediately info...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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** 2. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Hodgkin's lymphoma,...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview and record review it was determined for, 1 of 46 sample residents, that the facility did not off...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
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 46 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure the resid...
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 observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not ensure safe and secure storage of drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional principles; or include t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 3 of 46 sampled residents that the facility did not ensure the Offic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 3 of 46 sample residents, that the facility did not conduct a timely...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 18 of 46 sample residents, the facility did not assess a resident us...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not employ a clinically qualified full-time dietitian or another clinically qualified nutrition professional to serve as th...
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, interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and ser...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not maintain all mechanical equipment in safe operating condition. Specifically, a cover was missing over wires and pilot lig...
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
- • 43% turnover. Below Utah's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 4 harm violation(s), $41,232 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 33 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $41,232 in fines. Higher than 94% of Utah facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow Staffed?
CMS rates Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Utah average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow?
State health inspectors documented 33 deficiencies at Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow during 2020 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 4 that caused actual resident harm, and 26 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow?
Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow 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 ROCKY MOUNTAIN CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 124 certified beds and approximately 103 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in West Valley City, Utah.
How Does Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow Compare to Other Utah Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Utah, Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow?
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 Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow Stick Around?
Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for Utah 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow Ever Fined?
Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow has been fined $41,232 across 2 penalty actions. The Utah average is $33,491. 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow on Any Federal Watch List?
Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow 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.