2/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
2/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
Rocky Mountain Care, Maple Dell provides nursing home, hospice, palliative, respite, and skilled nursing care in Payson, UT. Nursing home and skilled nursing services provide ongoing nursing support, with 24 hour nursing coverage so care is available at any time of day. Short term nursing and rehabilitation can suit someone recovering after an illness or procedure. Respite care offers a temporary stay when a usual caregiver needs time away.
Hospice care supports residents receiving end of life care, while palliative care focuses on comfort and symptom management. Rehabilitation services and outpatient therapy are available for residents working on recovery or maintaining function. With 76 beds, the community may be a good fit for someone who needs nursing care, rehabilitation, or short term support in a nursing setting.
Outdoor areas give residents a place to spend time outside. Daily recreational and social activities include group activities, individual activities, and outings. Individualized wound care is also available, allowing a resident with wound care needs to receive that service as part of the facility’s care.
The Overall CMS Rating combines results from health inspections, staffing levels and quality measures. Health inspections carry the most weight. Staffing and quality scores can increase or decrease the final rating based on performance compared to state and national standards.
Based on the results of the facility's three most recent standard inspections and any complaint investigations. CMS reviews the number, scope, and severity of deficiencies, with more recent findings weighted more heavily.
Measures average nursing staff hours per resident per day, including Registered Nurses (RNs) and total nursing staff. Ratings are adjusted based on the level of care residents require and are compared to state and national benchmarks.
Based on clinical and physical health indicators reported to CMS, such as hospital readmissions, falls, pressure ulcers, and improvements in mobility. These measures reflect how well residents' health needs are being managed.
Data period: Q4 2025 (October 1 – December 31, 2025).
This nursing home is ranked 18th out of 68 nursing homes we track in Utah for nurse hours. Total adjusted nursing hours per resident per day, combining RN, LPN, and aide time. CMS adjusts this for case-mix so facilities can be fairly compared.
3h 27mStandout metric: Physical therapist is +72% above Utah average
4 of 6 metrics below Utah average
RNs hold the highest nursing license and can assess residents, interpret test results, and direct care plans. More RN hours per day often signals stronger clinical oversight and faster response to health changes. 26 total: 16 of the facility's own employees and 10 agency contractors.
26 staff · 7.8-hour shifts
Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) or Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) deliver routine hands-on care — medication administration, wound dressing, and monitoring vital signs. They work under RN supervision and make up a large share of daily bedside care. 2 total: 1 of the facility's own employee and 1 agency contractor.
2 staff · 7.6-hour shifts
Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) provide the most direct day-to-day assistance: bathing, dressing, feeding, and mobility. Nurse aide hours are typically the largest staffing category and directly affect residents' quality of life. 44 total: 23 of the facility's own employees and 21 agency contractors.
44 staff · 8.6-hour shifts
Hours per resident per day provided by licensed Physical Therapists (PTs) or PT Assistants. PT services help residents recover mobility after injury or illness and are especially important for post-acute (short-stay) rehabilitation.
Combined nursing hours (RN + LPN + Nurse Aide) per resident per day on weekends. Staffing often drops on weekends — this figure reveals whether the facility maintains adequate coverage outside of weekday hours.
RN + LPN + aide · Sat–Sun
Registered nurse hours specifically on weekends. Facilities sometimes reduce RN presence on Saturdays and Sundays — a low weekend RN figure compared to weekday hours can indicate reduced clinical oversight when most administrative staff are absent.
Sat–Sun
Every person who worked here at any point in the quarter, employees and contractors. It is not how many are on site at once: that is the "on an average day" figure.
91
59 employees · 32 contractors · 26 on an average day
91 total staff / 50 residents. Residents: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (data as of Jun 2026); staff: CMS Payroll-Based Journal (Q4 2025).Residents and staff come from two different CMS releases, so the two counts can be a few months apart.
1.82 : 1
↓ 10% · UT 2.03This facility: 1.82 staff per resident, 10% below the Utah average of 2.03 (among Utah facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
91 staff ÷ 50 residents
See full Utah ranking →
Average hours one staff member works on a day they are on shift, across every role.
7.9 h
≈ 0% · UT 7.9 hThis facility: 7.9 h, level with the Utah average of 7.9 h (among Utah facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
18,993 staff hours this quarter
See full Utah ranking →91.6% of staff hours were worked by the facility's own employees
Utah average: 94.4% · Contractors this quarter: Certified Nursing Assistant (21), Registered Nurse (10), Licensed Practical Nurse (1)
Why it matters: employees work here week after week and get to know each resident's routines and needs. Agency contractors often rotate between facilities, so a higher employee share usually means more consistent care.
A smaller, more intimate setting that may offer a quieter environment and closer staff-resident interactions.
76
Rank #48 / 72Bed count — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 48th out of 72 nursing homes we track in Utah for bed count. Shows this facility's certified or reported bed count compared to other Utah facilities. Larger communities may offer more amenities, programs, and on-site services for residents and families. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Utah that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.Smaller home · May offer a more intimate, personalized care environment.
A longer operating history, which may indicate experience navigating regulations and delivering ongoing care. This is the number of years in operation under current management.
Rank #17 / 63Years in operation — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 17th out of 63 nursing homes we track in Utah for years in operation. Shows how long this facility has been in operation compared to other Utah facilities. Longer operating histories may benefit residents, families, and staff. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Utah that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Very walkable. Most errands can be accomplished on foot, and many essentials are within a short walk.
Rank #5 / 81Walk Score — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 5th out of 81 nursing homes we track in Utah for walk score. Shows how walkable this facility's neighborhood is compared to the average walk score across Utah facilities. Higher scores benefit residents, families, and staff. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Utah that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Occupancy lower than 85% suggests more openings may be available.
Based on 53.3 residents and 76 beds. Source: CMS Provider Information, average daily residents
Similar to the Utah average: 71.4%
Average number of days residents stay at this facility, based on CMS cost report data. Shorter stays often reflect post-acute or rehab care; longer stays reflect long-term care.
This profile shows two inspection records, and their totals often differ. Inspection History and the Inspection Scorecard below are state data — the figures the state publishes and the state inspection reports we hold on file — covering the entire facility. CMS Health Inspection History covers only this home's Medicare and Medicaid-certified nursing beds, from federal certification surveys.
In Utah, the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Facility Licensing conducts regular onsite inspections to ensure compliance with state and federal healthcare standards.
We don't have enough verified data to publish an inspection grade for this facility — a missing grade reflects what we've been able to verify, not the facility's quality.
This scorecard compares key inspection, deficiency, and complaint metrics at this facility against the Utah state average. Metrics rated ≥15% worse than average are highlighted in red; those ≥15% better are highlighted in green.
Deficiencies
| This Facility | UT Average | vs. UT Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Deficiencies
Total deficiencies cited across all inspections on record. Utah reports these by severity; the levels below add up to this figure.
| 1 | 1.8 | This facility has 44% fewer deficiencies than a typical Utah nursing home (1 vs. UT avg 1.8).↓ 44% better |
|
Deficiencies High
Part of the Deficiencies total above — those cited at high severity. The severity levels add up to the total.
| 1 | 0.7 | This facility has 43% more deficiencies high than a typical Utah nursing home (1 vs. UT avg 0.7).↑ 43% worse |
|
Deficiencies Moderate
Part of the Deficiencies total above — those cited at moderate severity. The severity levels add up to the total.
| 0 | 0.4 | This facility has 100% fewer deficiencies moderate than a typical Utah nursing home (0 vs. UT avg 0.4).↓ 100% better |
|
Deficiencies Low
Part of the Deficiencies total above — those cited at low severity. The severity levels add up to the total.
| 0 | 0.6 | This facility has 100% fewer deficiencies low than a typical Utah nursing home (0 vs. UT avg 0.6).↓ 100% better |
|
Deficiencies per inspection
Average deficiencies per inspection.
| 1.0 | 0.5 | This facility has 100% more deficiencies per inspection than a typical Utah nursing home (1 vs. UT avg 0.5).↑ 100% worse |
Inspections
| This Facility | UT Average | vs. UT Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Total inspections
Combined count of all inspections conducted at this facility.
| 1 | 3.9 | This facility has had 74% fewer total inspections than the Utah average (1 vs. UT avg 3.9). More inspections can mean more regulatory scrutiny rather than worse care.↓ 74% fewer |
|
Inspections with deficiencies
Inspections that resulted in at least one regulatory deficiency.
| 1 | 1.0 | This facility has inspections with deficiencies in line with the Utah average (1 vs. UT avg 1).— At avg |
|
Inspection deficiency rate
Percentage of inspections that resulted in at least one deficiency.
| 100% | 22% | This facility has 78 percentage points higher inspection deficiency rate than a typical Utah nursing home (100% vs. UT avg 22%).↑ 78% worse |
Federal inspection data published by CMS, covering this home's Medicare and/or Medicaid-certified skilled-nursing/nursing beds only.
100% corrected
80 of 80 citations corrected Latest inspection: May 05, 2026 · 1 citation (Pharmacy, serious), corrected
Most cited category: Resident Rights, 12 of 80 citations · 10 categories in total
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Showing the 50 most recent of 80 citations.
Health citations are formal notices following inspections when they fail to comply with safety and care standards.
76 of 80 citations resulted from standard inspections; 1 of 80 resulted from complaint investigations; and 3 of 80 came from combined inspections (standard and complaint).
Includes all CMS health inspection records for this property, which could include management/ownership changes.
Data sourced from CMS Health Deficiencies reports, which cover the Medicare and/or Medicaid-certified skilled-nursing and nursing beds and no other part of the community. Citation severity codes range from A (least serious) to L (most serious). Immediate Jeopardy (J-L) citations indicate situations where the facility's noncompliance has placed residents at risk of death or serious harm.
Federal penalties imposed by CMS for regulatory violations, including civil money penalties (fines) and denials of payment for new Medicare/Medicaid admissions.
Source: CMS Penalties Database · Data as of Aug 2026
No penalties in the past 3 years
No civil money penalties or payment denials on record since Aug 2023.
Serious action where Medicare and/or Medicaid temporarily stops payments for new residents until issues are fixed.
How residents at this home fare on health outcomes and preventive care, compared with the Utah average.
Average of five long-stay measures: pressure ulcers, falls with major injury, unplanned weight loss, worsening ability to walk, and needing more help with daily activities. Each is the % of residents affected, so lower is better.
11.6
Score · lower is better
↑ 62% · UT 7.1This facility: 11.6, 62% above the UT average of 7.1 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Average of three long-stay measures: needing more help with daily activities, worsening ability to walk, and loss of bowel or bladder control. Each is the % of residents affected, so lower is better.
25.6
Score · lower is better
↑ 60% · UT 16.0This facility: 25.6, 60% above the UT average of 16.0 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.11 long-stay measures: 3 better, 7 worse, 1 near UT average
3 short-stay measures: 2 better, 1 worse
People who live at the home · 11 measures
Percent of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
20.3%
↑ 80% · UT 11.3This facility: 20.3, 80% above the UT average of 11.3 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents whose ability to move independently worsened
24.6%
↑ 63% · UT 15.1This facility: 24.6, 63% above the UT average of 15.1 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
32.0%
↑ 49% · UT 21.5This facility: 32.0, 49% above the UT average of 21.5 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
2.5%
↑ 35% · UT 1.8This facility: 2.5, 35% above the UT average of 1.8 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
7.3%
↑ 189% · UT 2.5This facility: 7.3, 189% above the UT average of 2.5 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay high risk residents with pressure ulcers
2.8%
↓ 29% · UT 3.9This facility: 2.8, 29% below the UT average of 3.9 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
2.8%
↓ 15% · UT 3.4This facility: 2.8, 15% below the UT average of 3.4 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
37.3%
↑ 126% · UT 16.5This facility: 37.3, 126% above the UT average of 16.5 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
7.2%
↓ 49% · UT 14.2This facility: 7.2, 49% below the UT average of 14.2 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
99.4%
↑ 2% · UT 97.4This facility: 99.4, 2% above the UT average of 97.4 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
92.9%
↓ 5% · UT 98.0This facility: 92.9, 5% below the UT average of 98.0 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Rehab and recovery after a hospital stay · 3 measures
Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
0.0%
↓ 100% · UT 0.9This facility: 0.0, 100% below the UT average of 0.9 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
99.7%
↑ 6% · UT 93.8This facility: 99.7, 6% above the UT average of 93.8 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
82.4%
↓ 9% · UT 91.0This facility: 82.4, 9% below the UT average of 91.0 (among UT facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Arrows show whether a figure is above or below the average. Green is better for residents, red is worse, and yellow means within 5% of the average. The line on each bar marks the average.
Quality measures are calculated by CMS from Minimum Data Set (MDS) resident assessments and Medicare claims.
12% of new residents, usually for short-term rehab.
77% of new residents, often for short stays.
12% of new residents, often for long-term daily care.
Source: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (Data as of Jun 2026)
Total residents
50Residents meet regularly to discuss policies, care quality, and activities
Family members meet regularly to discuss policies, care quality, and activities
State-approved Nurse Aide Training and Competency Evaluation Program on-site
Organized group of family members that meets regularly to discuss facility policies, resident care, and activities.
Organized group of residents that meets regularly to discuss facility policies, quality of life, and activities.
Data sourced from CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics quarterly report. Payer mix reflects the current resident census by primary payment source.
Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell’s finances from its CMS cost report for the fiscal year ending December 2024, compared with 70 Utah nursing homes that filed a recent report. Includes all financial data for this property, which could include management/ownership changes.
Is it financially stable?
Losing money on care, but less than last year
−2.3% operating margin
+1.6 pts vs prior year
An operating loss in 7 of the last 8 reported years. Other income ($0.0M) trims the net loss to −$0.2M. Watch for cost-cutting that reaches staffing.
Does it invest in staff?
Spends less on payroll than most Utah homes
45.3% payroll share of revenue
UT average 51.2%Rank #46 / 68Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 46th out of 68 nursing homes we track in Utah for payroll % of net patient revenue. Shows payroll as a percentage of net patient revenue versus the Utah average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Below 25% may signal understaffing or heavy agency use — read with Staffing ratings. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Utah that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Payroll rose $0.4M while revenue rose $0.7M. A low share can mean leaner staffing; check hours per resident in the staffing section.
FY 2024 scorecard
Each row shows the FY 2024 figure, the change since the prior report, the trend, and how it compares with Utah homes.
Losing money on care
| Metric | FY 2024 | vs prior year | Trend 2016 → 2024Trend | UT median | Compared with UT homesRank in UT | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue What the home earns from resident care, after discounts and bad debt. | $6.9M | +$0.7M | Trend 20162024 | UT median $8.1M | Rank in UT Rank #43 / 70Net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 43rd out of 70 nursing homes we track in Utah for net patient revenue. Shows this facility's net patient revenue compared to the Utah average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Higher revenue generally means more resources for staffing and capital — read alongside Payroll %. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Utah that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 39% of homes | Below UT median Higher net patient revenue than 39% of UT homes that filed a recent report. Revenue mostly follows how big a home is. |
| Operating expenses Everything it costs to run the home: staff, supplies, rent, admin. | $7.0M | +$0.6M | Trend 20162024 | UT median — | Rank in UT Not ranked | Exceeds revenue Operating expenses are higher than net patient revenue, so resident care runs at a loss. |
| Net patient income Revenue minus operating expenses. Negative means care loses money. | −$0.2M | +$0.1M | Trend 20162024 | UT median — | Rank in UT Not ranked | Loss, narrowing Resident care lost money this year, less than in the prior report. |
| Operating margin Net patient income as a share of revenue. The clearest health signal. | −2.3% | +1.6 pts | Trend 20162024 | UT median — | Rank in UT Not ranked | Loss A negative margin means resident care costs more than it earns. |
| Other income Money not from resident care: investments, grants, services. | $0.0M | — | Trend — | UT median — | Rank in UT Not ranked | Offsets part of the loss Income from outside resident care covers part of the loss on care. |
| Net income The bottom line after other income. | −$0.2M | +$0.5M | Trend — | UT median — | Rank in UT Not ranked | Loss The bottom line is below zero even after other income. |
Spends less of revenue on staff than most Utah homes
| Metric | FY 2024 | vs prior year | Trend 2016 → 2024Trend | UT median | Compared with UT homesRank in UT | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll costs Salaries and wage-related benefits, not counting contract labor. | $3.1M | +$0.4M | Trend 20162024 | UT median $4.2M | Rank in UT Rank #50 / 70Payroll costs — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 50th out of 70 nursing homes we track in Utah for payroll costs. Shows total staff payroll — salaries plus wage-related benefits — benchmarked to the Utah average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Higher payroll relative to peers often signals better staffing and less reliance on contract labor. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Utah that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 29% of homes | Below UT median Higher payroll than 29% of UT homes. Payroll in dollars mostly follows how big a home is, so this compares size, not staffing levels. |
| Payroll share of revenue Payroll divided by revenue. Higher usually means more staff per resident. | 45.3% | +2.1 pts | Trend 20162024 | UT median 49.6% | Rank in UT Rank #46 / 68Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 46th out of 68 nursing homes we track in Utah for payroll % of net patient revenue. Shows payroll as a percentage of net patient revenue versus the Utah average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Below 25% may signal understaffing or heavy agency use — read with Staffing ratings. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Utah that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 33% of homes | 5.9 pts under UT average The UT average is 51.2% of revenue. Within 3 points of it reads as near the average. |
What the home earned from resident care (net patient revenue), what it cost to run (operating expenses) and the difference between the two (net patient income), for each fiscal year it filed a CMS cost report.
USD, millions
Net patient revenue Operating expenses Net patient income No report
Both lines are a share of net patient revenue. Payroll share is what goes to salaries and wage-related benefits; operating margin is what is left after every operating cost (below 0%, resident care lost money). The dashed line is the Utah payroll average.
% of net patient revenue
Payroll share Operating margin UT payroll average No report
| Metric | 2016 | 2017 | 2018no report | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue | $4.1M | $4.4M | $4.6M | $5.0M | $4.9M | $5.5M | $6.2M | $6.9M | |
| Operating expenses | $5.0M | $4.7M | $4.7M | $5.1M | $4.5M | $6.1M | $6.4M | $7.0M | |
| Net patient income | −$0.9M | −$0.3M | −$0.2M | −$0.1M | $0.4M | −$0.6M | −$0.2M | −$0.2M | |
| Operating margin | −21.2% | −7.1% | −3.5% | −3.0% | 7.5% | −11.2% | −3.9% | −2.3% | |
| Net income | −$0.8M | −$0.3M | $0.4M | $0.3M | $0.4M | −$0.8M | −$0.6M | −$0.2M | |
| Payroll costs | $2.4M | $2.3M | $2.3M | $2.2M | $2.1M | $2.2M | $2.7M | $3.1M | |
| Payroll share of revenue | 58.0% | 53.5% | 49.7% | 44.0% | 43.4% | 39.6% | 43.2% | 45.3% | |
| Beds | 76 | 76 | 76 | 76 | 76 | 76 | 76 | 76 | |
| Gross revenue | $4.1M | $4.4M | $4.7M | $6.5M | $4.9M | $5.5M | $6.2M | $10.7M | |
| Salaries | $2.0M | $2.0M | $1.9M | $1.9M | $1.9M | $1.9M | $2.3M | $2.7M | |
| Wage-related costs | $0.3M | $0.3M | $0.4M | $0.3M | $0.2M | $0.3M | $0.4M | $0.4M | |
| Contract labor | — | — | $0.5M | $0.3M | — | — | — | — | |
| Other operating costs | $2.6M | $2.4M | $2.5M | $2.9M | $2.4M | $3.9M | $3.8M | $3.9M | |
| Net patient revenue per day | $240 | $253 | $293 | $377 | $409 | $366 | $395 | $382 | |
| Cost per day | $291 | $271 | $303 | $388 | $379 | $407 | $410 | $391 | |
| Average length of stay | 43.8 days | 55.1 days | 130.3 days | 90.8 days | 68.9 days | 199.5 days | 79.6 days | 75.4 days |
Showing 2024–2022 · scroll sideways for 6 earlier years
Earlier and partial years are in the download. Download CSV
Residents typically stay for brief periods, with frequent admissions and discharges throughout the year.
Most new residents arrive under private pay (77% of admissions), and a typical private pay stay runs around 25 days.
Coverage residents most often arrive under.
Coverage residents most often leave under.
0.0 miles from city center
Estimated distance in miles from Payson's city center to Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell's address, calculated via Google Maps.
Add your location
Info below is compiled from CMS reports & the UT Dept. of Health & Human Services (DHHS), senior community websites & trusted data sources such as Walk Score & BBB.
Communities are listed from highest-ranked to lowest-ranked based on our methodology.
The facility name. Click to view the full profile page on Assisted Living Magazine, including photos, services, and contact info.
|
CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that regulates nursing homes) Overall 5-star rating — a composite of Health Inspection, Staffing, and Quality Measures scores. 5 stars = top 10% nationally. 1 star = bottom 10%. The single most important number to start with when comparing facilities.
|
Care Types in This Table
NH (Nursing Home):
24/7 skilled nursing care for residents with complex, ongoing medical needs.
SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility):
Round-the-clock nursing care, often for recovery after surgery, injury, or illness.
MC (Memory Care):
Secured, specialized care for people living with Alzheimer's or dementia.
RC (Respite Care):
Short-term temporary care that gives family caregivers a break.
HC (Home Care):
Professional care delivered in the person's own home, from companionship to skilled nursing.
HOS (Hospice Care):
Comfort-focused care for those with a terminal illness, prioritizing quality of life over treatment.
PC (Palliative Care):
Comfort-focused care for serious illness at any stage, including alongside curative treatment.
|
Neighborhood or city area where the facility is located. Proximity to family, hospitals, and green space matters for both quality of life and ease of visitation. Consider drive time and transit access when evaluating location.
|
Licensed bed capacity. Larger facilities (300+ beds) often have more specialized programs but can feel institutional. Smaller homes (under 150 beds) tend to deliver more personalized care. Compare with Avg Res/Day to understand how full the facility typically runs.
|
Percentage of licensed beds filled on an average day. Color indicates financial health: green (90%+) = operationally strong, typically profitable. Amber (80–89%) = stable but leaving revenue on the table. Orange (70–79%) = financial strain likely, may struggle with fixed costs. Red (<70%) = significant distress, closure or ownership change risk increases sharply.
|
This facility's occupancy rate compared to the statewide average for similar facilities. A positive number means above-average demand. Facilities running 5%+ above the state average are typically the most sought-after in their market — a strong proxy for reputation.
|
CMS-adjusted total nurse hours per resident per day (RN + LPN + CNA combined). The national average is approximately 3.5 hrs. Higher is better — more direct care time per resident. Below 3.0 is a red flag. CMS weights RN hours more heavily because RNs handle complex clinical decisions that CNAs cannot.
|
CMS Health Inspection star rating (1–5 stars), based on the 3 most recent annual state surveys plus any complaint investigations. This is the hardest rating to manipulate — it reflects real surveyor findings on-site. 5 stars = fewest deficiencies found. 1 star = most. It carries the heaviest weight in the Overall CMS rating.
|
CMS Staffing star rating (1–5 stars), based on daily nurse staffing hours submitted to CMS via verified payroll data. Compares RN, LPN, and CNA coverage relative to resident acuity level. 5 stars = well above expected staffing. Weekend staffing is evaluated separately, as that's where many facilities quietly reduce coverage.
|
CMS Quality Measures star rating (1–5 stars), based on 15 clinical outcome metrics including fall rates, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic drug use, and hospital readmissions. Captures actual resident health outcomes, not just compliance. High QM combined with low Health Inspection scores can indicate a facility with strong care but weak documentation practices.
|
Registered Nurse hours per resident/day compared to the statewide average. RNs are the highest-skilled nursing staff — they assess residents, manage medications, and respond to emergencies. A value of +50% means RN coverage is 50% above the state norm. Negative values are a concern for residents with complex or acute medical needs.
|
Total nursing staff hours (RN + LPN + CNA combined) per resident/day vs. the statewide average. A broader measure than RN vs State — it captures the entire care team. A facility can have high total staffing but low RN hours, meaning more aides and fewer nurses. Read both columns together for the full picture.
|
Total dollar amount of federal monetary fines (civil money penalties) issued by CMS in the past 3 years. Fines are only levied for serious violations — typically actual harm to residents, repeated uncorrected deficiencies, or systemic non-compliance. Even a single fine is noteworthy. Multiple fines strongly suggest a pattern, not isolated incidents.
|
Total health deficiency citations from the most recent standard inspection cycle. Minor citations (scope A–C) are common and often administrative in nature. Higher counts aren't always disqualifying, but should be read alongside Severe Citations to understand actual harm levels. Under 10 is strong for a large facility; 30+ warrants a closer look.
|
Average deficiency citations per CMS inspection (survey) in the reporting window — total citations divided by the number of inspections. Lower is better; compare alongside total Citations and Severe Citations for context.
|
Citations at CMS scope/severity level G or higher — G–I means actual harm occurred; J–L means residents were placed in immediate jeopardy. (D–F is potential for harm only). Examples include unaddressed falls, medication errors causing injury, neglect, or abuse.
|
Average number of residents in the building on any given day, derived from annual census data. Reflects true operating scale — a 400-bed facility running 200 residents/day operates very differently from one at 390. Higher resident counts generally mean more funded staffing hours.
|
Better Business Bureau rating (A+ to F). Reflects complaint history, business transparency, and how family disputes were resolved. A+ means no significant unresolved complaints. A blank (—) means the facility isn't BBB-accredited, which is common for healthcare providers and not necessarily a negative signal.
|
Walk Score® (0–100). Measures walkability of the surrounding area. 90–100 = Walker's Paradise. 70–89 = Very Walkable. 50–69 = Somewhat Walkable. Below 50 = Car-Dependent. Higher scores benefit family visitors, resident outings, and staff commuting.
|
The licensed owner or operator of record filed with CMS — the individual or organization legally accountable for the facility. Searching the operator name across other facilities can reveal chain or multi-site ownership, which matters: chain-operated homes tend to have more variable quality outcomes than independently run facilities.
|
What the home actually collects for resident care, after contractual allowances, bad debt and discounts — not gross billings. Taken from the latest complete annual cost report, so it is comparable across homes reporting the same period. Revenue alone doesn't indicate care quality, but it funds staffing and capital reinvestment. Pair with Payroll %. Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
Staff salaries plus wage-related benefits from the latest complete annual cost report. Contract and agency labour is counted separately, under other operating costs, so a home leaning on agency staff can show a low figure here. Payroll is the cost most directly tied to care quality — compare with Payroll % for full context. Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
Payroll as a share of NET PATIENT REVENUE (not gross revenue). Both figures come from the same cost-report year. A higher figure means more of each revenue dollar goes to staff pay. Read with the Staffing star rating to judge whether spend translates into coverage — and note that homes whose patient revenue covers only part of their operation can read implausibly high. The Utah average is: 51.2% Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
CMS Certification Number: the unique federal identifier for this skilled nursing provider.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pointe Meadows Health and Rehabilitation | NH MC SNF | Lehi | 99
Facility
99
UT AVG
94
Rank
#33 / 72 |
84.2%
Facility
84.2%
UT AVG
71.4%
Rank
#20 / 58 | +18% | 3.52
Facility
3.52
UT AVG
3.82
Rank
#23 / 68 | -6% | -8% | $0
Facility
$0
UT AVG
$43.9k
Rank
#1 / 74 | 22
Facility
22
UT AVG
27.3
Rank
#32 / 73 | 7.3
Facility
7.3
UT AVG
7.8
Rank
#40 / 73 | - | 83 | - |
70
Facility
70
UT AVG
52
Rank
#22 / 81 | Pointe Meadow Healthcare Inc | $13.2MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$13.2MFiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
$9.5M
Rank
#15 / 70 | $7.5MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$7.5MFiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
$4.7M
Rank
#9 / 70 | 56.7%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
56.7%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
51.2%
Rank
#19 / 68 | 465188 | ||||
| Pinnacle Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | NH MC SNF | North Price | 100
Facility
100
UT AVG
94
Rank
#29 / 72 |
63.4%
Facility
63.4%
UT AVG
71.4%
Rank
#46 / 58 | -11% | 3.34
Facility
3.34
UT AVG
3.82
Rank
#37 / 68 | -10% | -12% | $0
Facility
$0
UT AVG
$43.9k
Rank
#1 / 74 | 15
Facility
15
UT AVG
27.3
Rank
#13 / 73 | 5.0
Facility
5.0
UT AVG
7.8
Rank
#21 / 73 | - | 63 | - |
71
Facility
71
UT AVG
52
Rank
#18 / 81 | Price Healthcare, Inc | $8.7MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$8.7MFiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
$9.5M
Rank
#33 / 70 | $4.2MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$4.2MFiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
$4.7M
Rank
#37 / 70 | 47.7%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
47.7%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
51.2%
Rank
#43 / 68 | 465098 | ||||
| Cedar Health and Rehabilitation | NH MC SNF | Cedar City | 120
Facility
120
UT AVG
94
Rank
#14 / 72 |
57.5%
Facility
57.5%
UT AVG
71.4%
Rank
#43 / 58 | -19% | 3.80
Facility
3.80
UT AVG
3.82
Rank
#13 / 68 | -59% | 0% | $0
Facility
$0
UT AVG
$43.9k
Rank
#1 / 74 | 20
Facility
20
UT AVG
27.3
Rank
#23 / 73 | 6.7
Facility
6.7
UT AVG
7.8
Rank
#33 / 73 | 1 | 69 | - |
76
Facility
76
UT AVG
52
Rank
#8 / 81 | Cedar City Healthcare, Inc | $10.1MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$10.1MFiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
$9.5M
Rank
#28 / 70 | $5.5MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$5.5MFiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
$4.7M
Rank
#25 / 70 | 54.4%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
54.4%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
51.2%
Rank
#23 / 68 | 465143 | ||||
| Rocky Mountain Care – Hunter Hollow | NH HC HOS SNF | West Valley City | 124
Facility
124
UT AVG
94
Rank
#10 / 72 |
85.2%
Facility
85.2%
UT AVG
71.4%
Rank
#13 / 58 | +19% | 2.78
Facility
2.78
UT AVG
3.82
Rank
#59 / 68 | +25% | -27% | $20.3k
Facility
$20.3k
UT AVG
$43.9k
Rank
#50 / 74 | 26
Facility
26
UT AVG
27.3
Rank
#45 / 73 | 3.7
Facility
3.7
UT AVG
7.8
Rank
#8 / 73 | 6 | 106 | - |
67
Facility
67
UT AVG
52
Rank
#28 / 81 | Bcvv, Inc | $14.5MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$14.5MFiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
$9.5M
Rank
#11 / 70 | $7.4MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$7.4MFiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
$4.7M
Rank
#10 / 70 | 51.1%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
51.1%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
UT AVG
51.2%
Rank
#32 / 68 | 465075 | ||||
| Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell | NH HOS PC RC SNF | Payson | 76
Facility
76
UT AVG
94
Rank
#48 / 72 | 70.1% | -2% | 3.45
Facility
3.45
UT AVG
3.82
Rank
#18 / 68 | +70% | -10% | $0
Facility
$0
UT AVG
$43.9k
Rank
#1 / 74 | 80
Facility
80
UT AVG
27.3
Rank
#72 / 73 | 20.0
Facility
20.0
UT AVG
7.8
Rank
#72 / 73 | 6 | 53 | - |
79
Facility
79
UT AVG
52
Rank
#5 / 81 | Canyonlands Health Care Special Service District | $6.9MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$6.9MFiscal year ending 12/2024
UT AVG
$9.5M
Rank
#43 / 70 | $3.1MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$3.1MFiscal year ending 12/2024
UT AVG
$4.7M
Rank
#50 / 70 | 45.3%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
45.3%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
UT AVG
51.2%
Rank
#46 / 68 | 465129 |
Rank badges are statewide and care-type specific: each nursing home is ranked against every other UT nursing home we track that reports that metric, not just the 5 on this page. See how we rank facilities
Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell has a walk score of 79. Very walkable. Most errands can be accomplished on foot, and many essentials are within a short walk.
According to UT state health department records, Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell's license expires on July 31, 2027.
Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell's occupancy is 70.1%.
Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell has been operating for approximately 38 years, based on available licensing and registration records.
No, Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell has a no-pet policy.
Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell is registered as a for-profit in UT.
Rocky Mountain Care – Maple Dell received a 2-star overall rating from the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). This score combines results from staffing levels, quality measures, and health inspections.
Care Cost Calculator: See Prices in Your Area
Nursing Home Data Explorer
Don’t Wait Too Long: 7 Red Flag Signs Your Parent Needs Assisted Living Now
The True Cost of Assisted Living in 2025 – And How Families Are Paying For It
Understanding Senior Living Costs: Pricing Models, Discounts & Financial Assistance
