How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Progressive Care Center
1338 Phay Ave, Canon City, CO 81212 (opens Google Maps) · Fremont County · (719) 245-1406· 68 certified beds · avg 65 residents/day · certified since Jan 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 →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: FRONTLINE MANAGEMENT (9 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 7, 2024
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 6, 2022
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.04
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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 · Jan 6, 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 6, 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): 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: Jan 10, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 6, 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 · Jan 6, 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: Jan 10, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 22 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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. F-0600
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
View all 22 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0600 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | 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. · F-0656 |
| Nov 7, 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 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | 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 20, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 20, 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. · F-0689 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0600 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | 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 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0686 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 20, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · F-0744 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
| Apr 20, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 6, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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. · F-0686 |
| Jan 6, 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 |
| Jan 6, 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 7).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2023
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
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 | 3 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 7 | 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 facilityColorado averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.04
Colorado average: 3.89
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.53
Colorado average: 0.86
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.68
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) | 3.04 | 3.89 | 3.95 | bottom 13% in Colorado; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.53 | 0.86 | 0.69 | bottom 16% in Colorado; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.68 | 3.44 | 3.50 | bottom 12% in Colorado; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.33 | 0.61 | 0.48 | bottom 11% in Colorado; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.0 | 47.1 | 45.8 | top 26% in Colorado; top 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 37.5 | 44.6 | 42.9 | top 34% in Colorado; top 42% 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 3.00, RN 0.52, weekend 2.64.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.00 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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 Progressive Care Center. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baker, Adam | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 07/01/2021 |
| Jones, Robert | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 07/01/2021 |
| Kiklis, Dean | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 07/01/2021 |
| Orback, Heather | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 07/01/2021 |
| Saracino, Kelly | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2021 |
| Veluscek, Steven | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 79% | 07/01/2021 |
| Baker, Adam | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2021 |
| Baker, Adam | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2021 |
| Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2023 |
| Ferguson, Kelly | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/06/2023 |
| Ferguson, Kelly | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/06/2023 |
| Frontier Management INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2021 |
| Frontier Management INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/14/2025 |
| Frontline MDS Exchange LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Gameros, Jennifer | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/13/2021 |
| Gameros, Jennifer | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/13/2021 |
| Geanetta, Gracie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/21/2022 |
| Geanetta, Gracie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/21/2022 |
| Gray, Ashley | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2024 |
| Gray, Ashley | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2024 |
Showing 20 of 51 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 31 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.
- 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
- Peaks Care Center, the — Longmont, CO · overall 3/5
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.
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you arrange eye and hearing care for residents, including appointments and equipment like glasses or hearing aids?"
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 38% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 51 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 (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hildebrand Care Center | 0.0 mi | Canon City, CO | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Skyline Ridge Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 0.6 mi | Canon City, CO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Valley View Care Center | 0.6 mi | Canon City, CO | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Canon Lodge Care Center | 0.6 mi | Canon City, CO | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Bruce McCandless Co State Veterans Nursing Home | 8.3 mi | Florence, CO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 065183.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).