How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Garfield County Nursing Home
200 North 450 East, Panguitch, UT 84759 (opens Google Maps) · Garfield County · (435) 676-1262· 21 certified beds · avg 15 residents/day · certified since Feb 22, 2017 · Medicaid only — not Medicare certified
Certified for Medicaid only. It cannot bill Medicare, so a short post-hospital rehabilitation stay would not be covered the usual way here. Who pays for nursing home care →
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 25, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
6.61
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 15 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. F-0812
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. F-0605
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. F-0641
View all 15 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Jun 25, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605 |
| Jun 25, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Jun 25, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0880 |
| May 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Aug 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Aug 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Aug 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Aug 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Aug 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Aug 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0880 |
| Aug 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Sep 15, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Sep 15, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Sep 15, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0568 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 4 | 0 | F |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityUtah averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 6.61
Utah average: 3.87
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 2.36
Utah average: 1.17
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 5.70
Utah average: 3.39
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Utah avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 6.61 | 3.87 | 3.95 | top 4% in Utah; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 2.36 | 1.17 | 0.69 | top 3% in Utah; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 5.70 | 3.39 | 3.50 | top 6% in Utah; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.53 | 0.88 | 0.48 | top 8% in Utah; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 32.3 | 50.7 | 45.8 | top 9% in Utah; top 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 41.7 | 40.6 | 42.9 | top 49% in Utah; top 50% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 6.25, RN 2.23, weekend 5.38.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (6.25 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Garfield County Nursing Home. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
Government - County
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 32% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stonehenge of Cedar City | 26.7 mi | Cedar City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cedar Health and Rehabilitation | 26.7 mi | Cedar City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 46A072.