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: MONUMENT HEALTH GROUP (11 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 3, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 3, 2025
$19,747
Fines, last 3 years
3.69
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 provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Why it matters: Poor continence and catheter care leads to infections, skin breakdown, and loss of dignity.
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 11, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 24, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
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: Sep 22, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
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 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
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
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 complaintF-0609
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
Apr 3, 2025
▲ G · Actual 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
Apr 3, 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
Apr 3, 2025
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 3, 2025
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. · F-0610
Apr 3, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655
Apr 3, 2025
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
Apr 3, 2025
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
Apr 3, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881
Aug 24, 2023
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Aug 24, 2023
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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
Aug 24, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint · F-0573
Aug 24, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607
Aug 24, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656
Oct 14, 2021
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Oct 14, 2021
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
Oct 14, 2021
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff. · F-0886
Inspection trend by year
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2023
All citations:
5
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2025
All citations:
8
Serious citations (G–L):
1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2021
3
0
D
2023
5
1
G ▲
2025
8
1
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
Apr 3, 2025
Fine
$7,579
Aug 24, 2023
Fine
$12,168
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:
3.69
Utah average:
3.87
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
1.20
Utah average:
1.17
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.22
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)
3.69
3.87
3.95
top 39% in Utah; bottom 46% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
1.20
1.17
0.69
top 34% in Utah; top 9% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.22
3.39
3.50
top 38% in Utah; bottom 43% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.90
0.88
0.48
top 36% in Utah; top 8% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
36.2
50.7
45.8
top 15% in Utah; top 27% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
25.0
40.6
42.9
top 22% in Utah; top 20% 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 3.68, RN 1.19, weekend 3.21.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.68 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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Monument Healthcare Pioneer Trail. 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.
Showing 20 of 31 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 11 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Monument Health Group — 11 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.
815 South 200 West, Brigham City, UT 84302 · (435) 723-5289
Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 4/5· Fines (3y): $19,747
Most serious findings on record:
▲ Apr 3, 2025 (F-0690, Actual 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.
▲ Aug 24, 2023 (F-0600, Actual harm, isolated): The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
☐ "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
☐ "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
☐ "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "What is your approach to psychiatric medications — how do you try non-drug options first and work to reduce doses over time?"
☐ "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 36% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "The ownership record on file lists 31 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 465020 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)