New Mercer Commons

The Inspection Grade is a proprietary Assisted Living Magazine grade — a 0–100 score (shown as a letter) of a facility's regulatory inspection record, compared with other state-licensed facilities of a similar size in Colorado. It is built from several categories, each carrying a weighted share — ranking better than that group raises the grade, worse lowers it. Serious problems weigh more than clean marks, so one severe issue costs more than a good record earns.

It is not a government rating. CMS and state health agencies publish the underlying inspection records; the grade is our own calculation from them, and no regulator endorses or reviews it.

How the score is actually built — the categories, what share of the grade each one carries, the exact measure behind it, and how the pieces combine — is set out in the Methodology panel. This page covers what the grade is, what it is not, and when we decline to publish one.

It covers inspections, and nothing else. This grade reads a facility's regulatory inspection record. It does not measure staffing levels, clinical quality, food, activities, or what residents and families think of the place. A facility with a strong inspection record can still be a poor fit, and a weaker record is a reason to ask questions rather than a verdict.

Not every facility is graded on the same categories. Which categories exist at all depends on what a facility's regulator publishes — fines and problem-resolution data, for instance, are collected only at the federal level, so they are never part of a state-licensed facility's grade. A grade can even rest on a single category when that is the only inspection data on record. It reflects what we can actually verify, and a facility is never marked down for data that does not exist for it. The Methodology panel lists the categories this facility is graded on.

The period we look at. Where a state publishes its own inspection record, the grade follows that record and the period the state reports on. Where we grade from inspection reports we have read ourselves, the grade covers the last five years. CMS-certified nursing homes are graded on the current records CMS publishes. Either way, old findings age out: a facility isn't judged forever on a problem it has long since fixed.

Data quality. We weigh every category by how much verified data we actually have — federal CMS inspection records count fully, a state's own published record counts nearly as much, and reports read by our AI count for less. When a record is thin, we grade more cautiously and won't publish a damaging grade we can't stand behind.

The scale. It's set so a typical facility lands around a B+. Most homes are fine; C, D, or F is a genuine warning flag worth a closer look.

Every measure below is compared against other state-licensed facilities of a similar size in Colorado — a facility's position among its peers, not a fixed target. Each category starts at 78, the neutral point, and a measure moves it up or down according to where the facility ranks.

1. Serious deficiencies 45% of grade
   • Serious deficiencies Immediate jeopardy and actual harm deficiencies — the two bands the state reserves for findings that harmed a resident or put one at immediate risk — added up and divided by the number of inspections the state recorded. 100% of this category · can add or subtract
2. Moderate deficiencies 35% of grade
   • Moderate deficiencies Potential harm and minor deficiencies — everything the state cites below its serious bands — added up and divided by the number of inspections it recorded. They are not counted equally: a potential harm deficiency counts 3 times a minor one, so one potential harm finding weighs the same as 3 minor ones. A deficiency the state left unclassified counts as the mildest band. 100% of this category · can add or subtract
3. Reported occurrences 20% of grade
   • Reported occurrences Events the facility is required to report to the state itself — abuse, neglect, deaths, brain and spinal injuries, burns, diverted drugs and missing residents — divided by its licensed beds. Self-reported, and separate from both inspection findings and complaints. 100% of this category · can only subtract — a clean record here earns nothing

How each category is labelled on the card. Strong means the facility ranks in the best quarter of its peer group on that measure, or its figure is about half the peer median or better. Concern means the worst quarter, or about twice the peer median or worse. Typical is everything in between: the middle half of the peer group. A measure on which nothing was found always reads Strong. The label describes the facility's standing on that one measure and is not part of the arithmetic below.

The categories are averaged, each weighted by the share shown above, giving a score out of 100. Those shares assume every category has data behind it: where one is missing — because the regulator publishes nothing for it — that category is left out and the remaining ones take its share, rather than the facility being marked down for the gap. A result above 78 is then pulled back toward it in proportion to how complete the facility's record is, so a high grade cannot rest on thin evidence. A recent serious finding can cap the result regardless of the categories. The number is finally published on a 0–100 scale where a typical facility sits in the 70s and 80s. The letter comes from cut-offs set within Colorado — so every facility is compared only with state-licensed facilities of a similar size in Colorado.