2305 Blake Ave, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (opens Google Maps) · Garfield County · (970) 945-5476· 54 certified beds · avg 39 residents/day · certified since Nov 1, 1988 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: MADISON CREEK PARTNERS (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 31, 2024 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint
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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Aug 24, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 11, 2022 · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jan 25, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The 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. · from a complaint F-0558
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint F-0609
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| Apr 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Apr 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint · F-0725 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| Jul 31, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure care was delivered by qualified people following each resident's written care plan — the individualized document that spells out exactly what care that resident is supposed to receive. · F-0659 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · F-0699 |
| Mar 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
| Jan 11, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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. · F-0686 |
| Jan 11, 2022 | 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 |
| Jan 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| Jan 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Jan 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Jan 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 10 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 3 | 0 | E |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $5,293.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2023 | Fine | $5,293 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Colorado avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | — | 3.89 | 3.95 | — |
| Registered Nurse hours | — | 0.86 | 0.69 | — |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | — | 3.44 | 3.50 | — |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | — | 0.61 | 0.48 | — |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 81.8 | 47.1 | 45.8 | bottom 3% in Colorado; bottom 2% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 66.7 | 44.6 | 42.9 | bottom 13% in Colorado; bottom 15% 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 —, RN —, weekend —.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (— here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Glenwood Springs Healthcare. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief Joseph Trail, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 03/02/2026 |
| Tippet, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 83% | 03/02/2026 |
| White Canyon, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 18% | 03/02/2026 |
| Adragna, Joseph | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/25/2019 |
| Adragna, Joseph | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/25/2019 |
| Christensen, Covey | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2016 |
| Christensen, Covey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2016 |
| Clegg, Michael | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/12/1974 |
| Clegg, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/26/2023 |
| Clegg, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/26/2023 |
| Friis, Larry | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/19/2026 |
| Friis, Larry | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/19/2026 |
| Hopkins, Amber | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2021 |
| Hopkins, Amber | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2021 |
| Ikerd, John | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/02/2026 |
| Ikerd, John | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/25/2022 |
| Ikerd, John | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/25/2022 |
| Madison Creek Partners LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2016 |
| Madison Creek Partners LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/25/2026 |
All 19 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Madison Creek Partners — 13 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 12 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heritage Park Care Center | 9.8 mi | Carbondale, CO | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Garfield, CO — 4 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 065244.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details