Mission at Castle Rock
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Mission at Castle Rock has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerning issues. Ranked #20 out of 33 facilities in Wyoming, it falls in the bottom half, and in Sweetwater County, it is #2 out of 2, meaning there is only one local option that is better. The facility is showing signs of improvement, having reduced its issues from four in 2024 to two in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 44%, which is below the state average. However, there have been specific concerns, such as improper food storage and lack of proper hand hygiene during meal preparation, as well as medications that were not appropriately labeled, which could lead to safety risks. While there are strengths in staffing and no fines reported, families should weigh these issues carefully when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Wyoming
- #20/33
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Wyoming's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wyoming facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 49 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Wyoming. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (44%)
4 points below Wyoming average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Wyoming average (2.9)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Wyoming avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
2 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 staff interview, medical record review, facility incident investigation review, state survey agency incident database r...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of CDC guidelines, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure effective infection control practices were followed during 1 random observation. The findings were:
1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure bed rails were as...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure behavioral healt...
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
Based on observation, staff interview, policy and procedure review, and professional standard review, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled in accordance with professional standards i...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 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
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 medical record review, policy review, staff interviews, and review of facility documentation, the facility failed to pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, policy review, and CDC guidelines review, the facility failed to ensure infection control techniques were implemented for 2 random observations (staff moving dir...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
5 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, staff interview, and policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure residents or res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, review of the Notice of Proposed Transfer/Discharge form, and policy and proced...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, review of the facility's staff vaccination records, and review of the policy and procedures, the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0948
(Tag F0948)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility records and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure paid feeding assistants had completed a State-approved training program. The facility had 10 residents which requ...
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
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the U.S. Public Health Service Food Code, the facility failed to ensure food was properly stored in 1 of 1 kitchen. In addition the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wyoming facilities.
- • 44% turnover. Below Wyoming's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade D (40/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Mission At Castle Rock's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Mission at Castle Rock an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Wyoming, 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 Mission At Castle Rock Staffed?
CMS rates Mission at Castle Rock's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Wyoming average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Mission At Castle Rock?
State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at Mission at Castle Rock during 2022 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Mission At Castle Rock?
Mission at Castle Rock is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by MISSION HEALTH SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 59 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Green River, Wyoming.
How Does Mission At Castle Rock Compare to Other Wyoming Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wyoming, Mission at Castle Rock's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mission At Castle Rock?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Mission At Castle Rock Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Mission at Castle Rock has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Wyoming. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Mission At Castle Rock Stick Around?
Mission at Castle Rock has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Wyoming 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 Mission At Castle Rock Ever Fined?
Mission at Castle Rock 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 Mission At Castle Rock on Any Federal Watch List?
Mission at Castle Rock 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.