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: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 25, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Sep 25, 2025
$46,602
Fines, last 3 years
3.62
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
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.
Why it matters: Unneeded drugs expose residents to side effects, drowsiness, falls, and dangerous interactions.
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: Nov 17, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
The facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff.
Why it matters: Residents can go without required services — like therapy or dietitian care — that no one qualified is providing.
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: Nov 17, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 30, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
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: Apr 23, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 16 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
G · Actual 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
G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff. F-0840
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
View all 16 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
Sep 25, 2025
▲ G · Actual 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
Sep 25, 2025
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff. · F-0840
Sep 25, 2025
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
Sep 25, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550
Sep 25, 2025
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
Sep 25, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Sep 25, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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. · F-0756
Jul 30, 2024
▲ G · Actual 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
Mar 19, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Oct 18, 2023
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. · from a complaint · F-0689
Oct 18, 2023
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. · from a complaint · F-0812
Oct 18, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641
Oct 18, 2023
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. · from a complaint · F-0690
Sep 21, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Sep 21, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888
Sep 21, 2022
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
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 7).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2023
All citations:
4
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2024
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2025
All citations:
7
Serious citations (G–L):
2
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2022
3
0
E
2023
4
0
E
2024
2
1
G ▲
2025
7
2
G ▲
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.
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 25, 2025
Fine
$38,584
Jul 30, 2024
Fine
$8,018
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityUtah averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
3.62
Utah average:
3.87
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
1.18
Utah average:
1.17
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.12
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)
3.62
3.87
3.95
top 48% in Utah; bottom 43% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
1.18
1.17
0.69
top 38% in Utah; top 10% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.12
3.39
3.50
bottom 49% in Utah; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.84
0.88
0.48
top 44% in Utah; top 10% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
55.7
50.7
45.8
bottom 34% in Utah; bottom 24% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
45.5
40.6
42.9
bottom 40% in Utah; bottom 43% 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 3.79, RN 1.23, weekend 3.27.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.79 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Hurricane Health and Rehabilitation. 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.
All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Ensign Group — 342 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.
CMS records place this facility in Washington, UT — 8 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.