How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Peaks Care Center, the
1440 Coffman St, Longmont, CO 80501 (opens Google Maps) · Boulder County · (303) 776-2814· 84 certified beds · avg 84 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1984 · 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: FRONTLINE MANAGEMENT (9 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 9, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 29, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.29
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 · Oct 29, 2025 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 29, 2025 · 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: Nov 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 19 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. F-0695
View all 19 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 9, 2026 | 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 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · F-0678 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849 |
| Oct 29, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Aug 20, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2019 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2019 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2019 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Dec 10, 2019 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2019 | 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. · F-0692 |
| Dec 10, 2019 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 8
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 1 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 8 | 0 | F |
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 facilityColorado averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.29
Colorado average: 3.89
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.65
Colorado average: 0.86
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.89
Colorado average: 3.44
U.S. average: 3.50
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) | 3.29 | 3.89 | 3.95 | bottom 21% in Colorado; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.65 | 0.86 | 0.69 | bottom 31% in Colorado; top 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.89 | 3.44 | 3.50 | bottom 21% in Colorado; bottom 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.48 | top 38% in Colorado; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.7 | 47.1 | 45.8 | top 27% in Colorado; top 33% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 43.8 | 44.6 | 42.9 | top 47% in Colorado; bottom 46% 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 3.43, RN 0.68, weekend 3.02.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.43 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.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Peaks Care Center, the. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bogie33 | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 8% | 01/01/2018 |
| Eleanor Rusnak Revocable Living Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Equity Trust Company | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Fridrich, Gerald | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| Fridrich, John | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| Fridrich, Steve | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 6% | 01/01/2009 |
| Knight, Matthew | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| Okie Dokie Investments | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2009 |
| Pinson, Billie Jean | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Rentz Living Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Rudolph Ramos Living Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Schultz, David | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 9% | 03/26/2008 |
| Shaner, Sandra | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Shull, Glen | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| The Hassan Essayli Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 13% | 03/01/2008 |
| Tkaac Enterprises | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 13% | 03/01/2008 |
| Tous Van Nykerk Family Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Tous, George | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Trudel, David | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2008 |
| Veluscek, Steven | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 26% | 10/01/1995 |
Showing 20 of 77 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 57 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 Frontline Management — 9 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.
- Progressive Care Center — Canon City, CO · overall 2/5abuse
- Vista Ridge Care and Rehabilitation — Pueblo, CO · overall 3/5
- Garden Valley Retirement Village — Garden City, KS · overall 5/5
- Trinity Manor — Dodge City, KS · overall 4/5
- Wheatridge Park Care Center — Liberal, KS · overall 1/5
- Winfield Senior Living Community — Winfield, KS · overall 2/5
- Fairacres Manor, INC. — Greeley, CO · overall 4/5
- Grace Manor Care Center — Burlington, CO · 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?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Are staff on every shift trained and certified in CPR, and how do they know each resident's resuscitation wishes?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Colorado midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 39% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 77 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 16 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McIntosh Care and Rehabilitation Center | 1.1 mi | Longmont, CO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Longmont | 1.4 mi | Longmont, CO | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Katherine and Charles Hover Green Houses | 1.6 mi | Longmont, CO | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Accel at Longmont Health and Rehab, LLC | 4.0 mi | Longmont, CO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Berthoud Care and Rehabilitation | 8.7 mi | Berthoud, CO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Winding Trails Post Acute | 12.9 mi | Boulder, CO | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Good Samaritan - Loveland Village | 12.9 mi | Loveland, CO | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Green House Homes at Mirasol, the | 14.2 mi | Loveland, CO | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Boulder Post Acute | 14.2 mi | Boulder, CO | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Coal Creek Post Acute & Assisted Living | 14.6 mi | Lafayette, CO | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Boulder Canyon Health and Rehabilitation | 14.7 mi | Boulder, CO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Frasier Meadows Health Care Center | 14.7 mi | Boulder, CO | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 065189.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).