How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Meadow Peak Rehabilitation
6084 South Summit Vista Boulevard, Taylorsville, UT 84129 (opens Google Maps) · Salt Lake County · (385) 255-1105· 75 certified beds · avg 69 residents/day · certified since Apr 28, 2021 · 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: MISSION HEALTH SERVICES (7 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 11, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent May 23, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.64
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: 3/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 23, 2024 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 23, 2024 · F-0689
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: Jun 10, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 27, 2022 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 27, 2022 · F-0689
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: Dec 12, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 25 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. F-0755
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. F-0804
The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. F-0552
View all 25 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| May 11, 2026 | 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 |
| May 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| May 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| May 11, 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. · F-0689 |
| May 11, 2026 | 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 |
| May 11, 2026 | 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 |
| May 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0732 |
| May 11, 2026 | 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. · F-0760 |
| May 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0761 |
| May 11, 2026 | 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 |
| May 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| Jul 15, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0676 |
| May 23, 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. · F-0689 |
| May 23, 2024 | 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 |
| May 23, 2024 | 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 |
| May 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · F-0773 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | ▲ 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. · F-0689 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | 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 27, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | 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 27, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 12
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 4 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 12 | 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.
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: 3.64
Utah average: 3.87
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.19
Utah average: 1.17
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.20
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) | 3.64 | 3.87 | 3.95 | top 46% in Utah; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.19 | 1.17 | 0.69 | top 36% in Utah; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.20 | 3.39 | 3.50 | top 39% in Utah; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.99 | 0.88 | 0.48 | top 26% in Utah; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 27.4 | 50.7 | 45.8 | top 5% in Utah; top 10% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 31.8 | 40.6 | 42.9 | top 39% in Utah; top 32% 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 4.03, RN 1.32, weekend 3.55.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.03 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Meadow Peak 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bartholomew, Brenda | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Gangotena-Bernard, Fatima | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Hardman, Michelle | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Hardman, Michelle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Keele, Eddie | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/06/2025 |
| Meadow Peak SV LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Mission Health Services | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2024 |
| Mission Health Services | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/14/2025 |
| Murray, Brian | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Piquet, Shaeleen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Wootton, Zachary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Wootton, Zachary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Zimbelman, Michelle | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Zimbelman, Michelle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
All 14 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 Mission Health Services — 7 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.
- Mission at Alpine Rehabilitation Center — Pleasant Grove, UT · overall 2/5abuseSFF
- Mission at Community Living Rehabilitation Center — Centerfield, UT · overall 3/5
- Mission at Nephi Nursing and Rehabilitation — Nephi, UT · overall 4/5
- Mission at Richfield Nursing and Rehabilitation — Richfield, UT · overall 4/5
- MSM Brigham City LLC — Brigham City, UT · overall 3/5
- Mission at Castle Rock — Green River, WY · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
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 is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
- "Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
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 27% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 14 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 38 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow | 1.6 mi | West Valley City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Legacy Village Rehabilitation | 4.0 mi | Taylorsville, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing | 4.4 mi | West Valley City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Monument Healthcare Taylorsville | 5.8 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Aspen Ridge West Transitional Rehab | 6.8 mi | Murray, UT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Little Cottonwood Rehabilitation and Nursing | 6.8 mi | South Salt Lake, UT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Pine Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing | 7.0 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Midtown Manor | 7.2 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cascades at Riverwalk | 7.3 mi | Midvale, UT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Paramount Health and Rehabilitation | 7.4 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Meadow Brook Rehabilitation and Nursing | 7.4 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Monument Healthcare South Salt Lake | 7.5 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Salt Lake, UT — 35 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Millcreek Rehabilitation and Nursing — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 2/5abuse
- Monument Healthcare Canyon Rim — Millcreek, UT · overall 3/5
- Monument Healthcare Cottonwood Creek — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 3/5
- Monument Healthcare Millcreek — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 4/5
- Monument Healthcare Murray Creek — Millcreek, UT · overall 2/5abuse
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 465192.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).