Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston

475 Yellow Creek Rd, EVANSTON, WY 82930 (307) 789-0726
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
78/100
#3 of 33 in WY
Last Inspection: August 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #3 out of 33 facilities in Wyoming, placing it in the top half, and is the only nursing home in Uinta County. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from four in 2024 to one in 2025. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5, which suggests that staff generally stay, helping maintain continuity of care, although the turnover rate is 52%, which is average for the state. However, it has faced some serious incidents, including a resident suffering a significant fracture during a transfer that did not follow their care plan and a case of verbal abuse from a staff member towards another resident. These incidents highlight some areas of concern, but the facility has taken corrective actions to address the issues.

Trust Score
B
78/100
In Wyoming
#3/33
Top 9%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$13,176 in fines. Lower than most Wyoming facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 46 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Wyoming. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 52%

Near Wyoming avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $13,176

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Mar 2025 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

Based on medical record review, review of the facility investigation report, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe transfer was provided for 1 of 7 sample residents (#1) reviewed f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, review of the facility investigation report, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe transfer was provided for 1 of 7 sample residents (#1) reviewed for falls. This failure resulted in actual harm to resident #1 who was unable to keep his/her balance during a transfer. The resident suffered a comminuted [bone breaks in 3 or more places usually occurring after a forceful event] fracture involving the distal femoral diametaphysis above the femoral component of the left knee prosthesis. The facility implemented corrective action prior to the survey and was determined to be in substantial compliance as of 3/7/25. The findings were: 1. Review of the 2/14/25 quarterly MDS assessment showed resident #1 had a BIMS score of 8 out of 15 (moderate cognitive impairment); required substantial to maximal assistance with all mobility ADLs; and had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease and bipolar disease. Review of the resident's care plan showed the resident had a fall on 3/7/23 and 2 staff were to assist the resident with transfers. Review of the Occupational Therapy Recertification Progress Report and Updated Therapy Plan Report for the certification period of 1/28/25 to 2/26/25 showed the resident required maximal assistance with toilet transfers. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of a 2/20/25 nurse's note showed resident #1 was up to the restroom with assistance x [times] 1. Resident lost balance and CNA unable to lower resident to floor. Resident did hit head. Neuros were initiated. Further review of the incident showed the fall occurred at approximately 2:45 PM on 2/20/25. The nursing assessment showed no signs of injury, the resident did not exhibit pain, and had resumed his/her normal activities. b. Review of a nurse's note, dated 2/21/25 and timed 1:34 AM, showed the resident had started to yell and complain of severe pain to his/her knee. The resident was sent for imaging and diagnosed with an acute nondisplaced oblique spiral type fracture through the distal left femoral metaphysis superior to the knee arthroplasty. The injury was inoperable and the resident was placed on non-weight bearing status and was prescribed 5 milligrams of oxycodone every 4 hours as needed, 1000 milligrams of Tylenol 3 times per day, and a lidocaine patch to the knee. c. Review of a 2/24/25 nurse's note showed Notified physician of resident discomfort/pain. Order received to increase from 5 milligrams to 10 milligrams oxycodone every 4 hours as needed. 2. Interview with the NHA on 3/19/25 at 9:52 AM confirmed CNA #1 did not follow the resident's care plan which resulted in the resident falling and subsequent injury. The NHA stated the CNA received disciplinary action, had been educated, and audits of the CNA's skills continued to be evaluated. Further, an ad hoc Quality Improvement/Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was conducted on 2/27/25. 3. Review of the 2/27/25 QAPI minutes showed falls which occurred on 2/19 and 2/20 were reviewed; education to all staff doing mobility tasks was scheduled; an audit tool was created for the CNA involved; an audit tool was created for all staff doing mobility tasks; and an audit of all care plans for those assessed as needing 2-person assist or were a fall risk was planned. 4. Review of the facility's investigation showed interviews with staff were conducted and it was determined CNA #1 was independently toileting the resident when the resident fell. Education was provided to the CNA, an ongoing audit, which was started on 3/1/25, of the CNA's adherence to care plans and providing safe assistance to residents was reviewed. An audit of all residents currently listed as a 2-person assist was conducted and education was provided to all staff providing assistance with transfers by the therapy department on 3/7/25.
Sept 2024 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

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 medical record review, resident and staff interview, facility incident review, and policy and procedure review, the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, resident and staff interview, facility incident review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal abuse by a staff member for 1 of 6 sample residents (#4). This failure resulted in actual psychosocial harm to resident #4. The findings were: The facility had implemented corrective action prior to the survey and was determined to be in substantial compliance as of 9/5/24. 1. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] showed resident #4 had a brief interview for mental status score of 9 out 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident, hemiplegia or hemiparesis, and depression. Further review showed the resident did not exhibit physical or verbal behavioral symptoms or rejection of care. The following concerns were identified: a. Review of an incident report dated 8/31/24 showed CNA #1 and CNA #2 were assisting the resident with care. The resident called CNA #1 a bitch and told the CNA to get out of his/her room while using expletives. The CNA responded by calling the resident a cunt. The incident was reported by CNA #2 to the nurse and the nurse notified administration. CNA #1 was placed on suspension pending an investigation. During the investigation, resident #4, who has difficulty with communication, reported CNA #1 was making fun of him/her, grabbed [him/her] and told the resident to knock it off, and s/he totally lost her mind. The resident was emotional during the interview, said CNA #2 was good and nice, and acknowledged s/he had been swearing, yelling, or using foul language with staff that day. The investigation showed resident #4's representative reported the resident had called after the incident to report CNA #1 was mocking the resident due to his/her difficulty speaking and the resident was embarrassed and belittled. The resident's representative reported CNA #1 had been one of the resident's favorites in the past. The Investigation showed CNA #2 reported the resident had been cursing at staff and CNA #1 called the resident a F-ing Cunt and may have been a bit rough. CNA #2 described the resident as a bit stunned after the incident. Further review showed CNA #1 admitted to calling the resident the name and was terminated from the facility. b. Interview with resident #4 on 9/17/24 at 5:24 PM revealed the CNA #1 entered the room and was speaking to him/her in a way s/he felt was making fun of him/her. CNA #1 forced the resident to roll over in bed and it made the resident mad. Following the incident, the resident revealed s/he called his/her daughter while crying, because s/he was upset. c. Interview with CNA #2 on 9/18/24 at 9:21 AM revealed on the day of the incident, she had asked CNA #1 to assist with providing care to the resident. She revealed CNA #1 forcefully repositioned the resident and the resident called the CNA a fucking bitch and CNA #1 responded by calling the resident a fucking cunt. Further interview revealed CNA #1probably made fun of resident #4 during the incident; however, she does not recall it. d. Attempted interview with CNA #1 on 9/18/24 at 9:15 AM was unsuccessful. A message was left and no return call was received. e. Interview with the administrator on 9/18/24 at 10:45 AM confirmed CNA #1 was terminated from the facility. The administrator revealed although the resident curses often, s/he did not normally get upset which made the facility believe the resident was affected by the incident. The administrator revealed resident #4 had previously refused counseling services offered by the facility; however, s/he accepted counseling following the incident. Further interview revealed as a result of the incident, the facility completed abuse training for staff, interviewed residents, performed ongoing customer satisfaction surveys, and were reviewing abuse in during their quality assurance meeting. f. Interview with licensed clinical social worker #1 on 9/18/24 at 11:05 AM confirmed resident #4 began counseling services and the incident was an area to address. g. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation last revised 6/2023 showed .1. The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: a. Prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of resident and misappropriation of resident property . 2. The following plan of correction was implemented by the facility on 9/5/24: a. CNA #1 was terminated from the facility. b. Residents were interviewed related to abuse and neglect. c. Counseling services were offered, accepted, and implemented with resident #4. d. Staff completed training related to the Dos and dont's of managing a client who is angry or aggressive and Techniques for managing cognitive impairment. e. Customer Satisfaction Surveys. f. Quality Assurance review of abuse.
Aug 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a written notice of the transfer to the resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a written notice of the transfer to the resident and/or their representative for 2 of 2 residents (#3, #21) who were hospitalized . The findings were: 1. Review of progress notes showed resident #3 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on 4/1/24. Further review showed the resident received the bed hold notice, but there lacked evidence the resident was issued a written transfer notice. 2. Review of progress notes and a nursing emergent discharge summary showed resident #21 went to the hospital on 7/14/24 and returned to the facility on 7/16/24. Further review showed the resident received the bed hold notice, but there lacked evidence the resident was issued a written transfer notice. 3. During interviews on 8/22/24 at 8:46 AM and 11:19 AM the administrator stated the facility issued a written notice which contained the resident's right to appeal and the Ombudsman contact information for discharges, but did not issue a written transfer notice for transfers to the hospital.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a level II PASARR [preadmission screening and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a level II PASARR [preadmission screening and resident review] was completed as required for 1 of 2 sample residents (#11) reviewed for PASARR. The findings were: 1. Review of the medical record showed resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and PTSD. Review of the PASRR level 1 dated 5/4/23 showed the resident had a major mental illness. The level 1 screening showed the result was Categorically appropriate for convalescent care after acute hospital stay, not to exceed 120 days. The PASRR further showed .An individualized level II determination will be required on the 120th day if client stay will be extended, please plan accordingly. The following concerns were identified: a. Further review of the medical record showed no evidence the PASRR level II was completed although the resident remained in the facility past 120 days. b. On 8/22/24 at 9:56 AM the administrator stated the PASRR level II was not done, but should have been because, the resident exceeded 120 days.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that the binding arbitration agreement explicitly stated that the resident or their representative was not required to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that the binding arbitration agreement explicitly stated that the resident or their representative was not required to sign the agreement as a condition of admission or to continue to receive care at the facility for 2 of 2 sample residents who signed an arbitration agreement (#11, #25). The findings were: 1. On 8/20/24 at 11:04 AM the administrator stated no residents had signed binding arbitration agreements. 2. However, medical record review revealed the following: a. Resident #11 signed an admission agreement on 4/28/21. A binding arbitration agreement was embedded in the admission agreement and did not explicitly state the resident was not required to sign it as a condition of admission. The admission agreement did not give the resident the opportunity to decline the arbitration agreement, but agree to the rest of the admission agreement. b. Resident #25 signed an admission agreement on 2/17/21. A binding arbitration agreement was embedded in the admission agreement and did not explicitly state the resident was not required to sign it as a condition of admission. The admission agreement did not give the resident the opportunity to decline the arbitration agreement, but agree to the rest of the admission agreement. 3. Interview with the administrator on 8/20/24 at 1:18 PM revealed the facility revised their admission agreement in 2023 to be in line with regulations related to arbitration, and the facility did not ask residents to enter into an arbitration agreement. 4. A phone interview with facility lawyer #1 on 8/21/24 at 3:04 PM revealed the facility did not do binding arbitration agreements anymore, but acknowledged the older admission agreements were a problem.
Jun 2023 1 deficiency
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of nurse staffing postings, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the nurse staffing posting included the census and total number of staff worked per shift. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of nurse staffing postings, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the nurse staffing posting included the census and total number of staff worked per shift. The census was 49. The findings were: 1. Observation on 6/29/23 at 8:27 AM showed the nurse staffing information was posted on a bulletin board in the hallway. The information did not include the census nor did it include the actual number of staff worked per shift by category of staff. 2. Review of the nurse staffing postings from 6/1/23 through 6/26/23 showed the census was not included. In addition, there was information for the number of FTEs [full time equivalent] but that information was not accurate for the number of staff who actually worked each shift. 3. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 8:46 AM the administrator stated human resources staff was responsible for the posting and confirmed the posting did not include the census nor accurate numbers of staff worked.
May 2022 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of menus, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed as planned for 1 of 1 meal preparation and service observation (noon meal on 5/18/22). The...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of menus, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed as planned for 1 of 1 meal preparation and service observation (noon meal on 5/18/22). The census was 44. The findings were: Observation of the 5/18/22 noon meal preparation and service showed the certified dietary manager (CDM) and 2 other staff members were preparing the food. The foods that were prepared and served included: beef stew with vegetables, garden salad, bread, and pecan pie. Review of the menu showed chilled steamed vegetables were planned in place of the garden salad for residents that had mechanical soft or pureed diet textures. In addition, the menu showed the serving size for the beef stew was 8 ounces regardless of texture. The following concerns were identified: a. Observation at 12:10 PM showed a 6 ounce ladle was used to serve the beef stew. b. Review of the resident diet orders showed there were 3 residents (#29, #37, #145) who required pureed texture meals, and 11 residents (#3, #9, #10, #11, #14, #16, #19, #24, #27, #34, #42) who required mechanical soft texture meals. Observation between 12 to 12:30 PM showed the residents received tomato juice instead of the chilled steamed vegetables. c. Interview on 5/18/22 at 12:30 PM with the CDM revealed she had not checked the menu for the serving sizes. Additionally, she had not prepared the chilled steamed vegetables for the texture altered diets, thinking the tomato juice was adequate.
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

Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the US Food Code, the facility failed to ensure the food storage equipment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner in 1 of 1 kitchens. The ce...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the US Food Code, the facility failed to ensure the food storage equipment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner in 1 of 1 kitchens. The census was 44. The findings were: 1. Observations on 5/16/22 at 4:39 PM and 5/18/22 at 11:33 AM showed the following concerns with equipment: a. The ice machine had a buildup of a pink and brown discoloration on the interior part, located above the ice in the storage bin. b. The walk-in-cooler walls, ceiling, and fan covers were soiled with dark colored dust and grime. 2. Interview with the certified dietary manager (CDM) on 5/18/22 at 11:40 AM revealed the maintenance director conducted the sanitation for the ice machine. She also stated there was a schedule to deep clean the kitchen in June and the walk-in-cooler was part of the planned cleaning. 3. Interview with the maintenance director on 5/18/22 at 11:50 AM confirmed the ice machine was sanitized monthly, last done on 4/1/22. He and the CDM verified the area on the interior needed to be cleaned when soiled in a manner that would not contaminate the ice. 4. According to Food Code 2017, U.S. Public Health Service: 4-601.11 (A) Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch . (C) Nonfood-contact surfaces of equipment shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $13,176 in fines. Above average for Wyoming. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Wyoming, 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston Staffed?

CMS rates Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Wyoming average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 5 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston?

Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in EVANSTON, Wyoming.

How Does Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston Compare to Other Wyoming Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wyoming, Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston?

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 Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston 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 Wyoming. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston Stick Around?

Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Wyoming 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston Ever Fined?

Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston has been fined $13,176 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Wyoming average of $33,211. 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 - Evanston on Any Federal Watch List?

Rocky Mountain Care - Evanston 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.