ColoradoGlenwood Springs

Glenwood Springs Healthcare

2305 Blake Ave, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 · Garfield County · 54 certified beds · avg 39 residents/day · certified since Nov 1, 1988

Part of chain: MADISON CREEK PARTNERS (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$5,293
Fines, last 3 years
0.00
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: 2/5

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

Corrected: Aug 24, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jan 25, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (29)

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
Apr 21, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Apr 21, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 21, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Oct 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024▲ 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. · from a complaint
Mar 30, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Mar 30, 2023F · 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.
Mar 30, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Jan 11, 2022▲ 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.
Jan 11, 2022F · 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.
Jan 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jan 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 7).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202261G ▲
2023100F
2024101G ▲
202630E

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)

1 fine totaling $5,293.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 5, 2023Fine$5,293

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

MeasureThis facilityColorado avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)0.003.893.95
Registered Nurse hours0.000.860.69
Weekend total nurse staffing0.003.443.50
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.000.610.48
Total nursing staff turnover (%)81.847.145.8bottom 3% in Colorado; bottom 2% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)66.744.642.9bottom 13% in Colorado; bottom 15% 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 0.00, RN 0.00, weekend 0.00. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Chief Joseph Trail, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%03/02/2026
Tippet, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest83%03/02/2026
White Canyon, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest18%03/02/2026
Adragna, JosephIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/25/2019
Adragna, JosephIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/25/2019
Christensen, CoveyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2016
Christensen, CoveyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2016
Clegg, MichaelIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE02/12/1974
Clegg, MichaelIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/26/2023
Clegg, MichaelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/26/2023
Friis, LarryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/19/2026
Friis, LarryIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/19/2026
Hopkins, AmberIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2021
Hopkins, AmberIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2021
Ikerd, JohnIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE03/02/2026
Ikerd, JohnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/25/2022
Ikerd, JohnIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/25/2022
Madison Creek Partners LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2016
Madison Creek Partners LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/25/2026

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
Heritage Park Care Center9.8 miCarbondale, CO★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 1 closest →

All facilities in Glenwood Springs →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 065244.