IdahoMontpelier

Bear Lake Memorial Skilled Nursing Facility

164 South Fifth Street, Montpelier, ID 83254 · Bear Lake County · 36 certified beds · avg 30 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1977

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.00
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 20, 2019 · F-0686

The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jul 31, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (22)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 19, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Jun 20, 2019▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Jun 20, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jun 20, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Jun 20, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly hold, secure, and manage residents' personal money that was deposited with it for safekeeping. Facilities holding residents' funds must keep careful, honest accounts.
Jun 20, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Jun 20, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Jun 20, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 13).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
201971G ▲
202420D
2026130F

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityIdaho avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.004.033.95top 32% in Idaho; top 39% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.000.870.69top 24% in Idaho; top 16% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.353.483.50top 39% in Idaho; bottom 50% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.680.560.48top 23% in Idaho; top 17% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)35.350.345.8top 9% in Idaho; top 25% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)40.041.042.9top 47% in Idaho; top 46% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.74, RN 0.93, weekend 3.13. Staffing rating: 1/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

Government - City/county

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bear Lake County Memorial HospitalOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/01/1977
Beck, CherylIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest10%02/23/2021
Culver, CraigIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest10%02/05/2016
Johnson, MerriIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest10%12/01/2025
Rasmussen, VaughnIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest10%08/27/2024
Transtrum, EmilyIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest10%01/01/2018
Bear Lake County Memorial HospitalOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/1977
Crane, LeslieIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/28/2009
Harris, MarkIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2005
Hunt, ArelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/14/2022
Hunt, ArelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/14/2022
Hunt, ArelIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/14/2022
Hunt, ArelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/14/2022
Jacobson, TrevorIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/20/2016
Jacobson, TrevorIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/20/2016
Jacobson, TrevorIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/14/2022
Passey, CordellIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE02/05/2016

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Franklin County Transitional Care32.9 miPreston, ID★★★★★4/5
Star Valley Care Center33.4 miAfton, WY★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 2 closest →

All facilities in Montpelier →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 135070.