UtahHeber City

Rocky Mountain Care - the Lodge

544 East 1200 South, Heber City, UT 84032 · Wasatch County · 92 certified beds · avg 65 residents/day · certified since Jan 8, 1998

Part of chain: ROCKY MOUNTAIN CARE (10 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
5
Serious findings on record
$32,029
Fines, last 3 years
3.52
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Mar 29, 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 (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: May 8, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 4, 2026 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jun 10, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jan 13, 2022 · F-0697

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Mar 4, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 15, 2019 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Nov 8, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 15, 2019 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Nov 8, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (30)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 4, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Mar 13, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Mar 13, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Mar 29, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Mar 29, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Mar 29, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Mar 29, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · from a complaint
Mar 29, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Mar 29, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jan 13, 2022▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Jan 13, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 13, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 13, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jan 13, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Oct 15, 2019▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 15, 2019▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated.
Oct 15, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 15, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Oct 15, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 15, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 15, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Oct 15, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 2).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2019162G ▲
202251G ▲
202461J ▲
202520D
202611G ▲

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)

1 fine totaling $32,029, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Mar 29, 2024Fine$32,029
Mar 29, 2024Payment Denial22 days from May 9, 2024

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityUtah avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.523.873.95bottom 44% in Utah; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.271.170.69top 27% in Utah; top 8% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.153.393.50top 44% in Utah; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.990.880.48top 27% in Utah; top 6% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)69.950.745.8bottom 11% in Utah; bottom 6% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)63.340.642.9bottom 11% in Utah; bottom 17% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.63, RN 1.31, weekend 3.25. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Beaver City CorporationOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%04/12/2013
Bangerte, NathanIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2025
Bangerter, EdwardIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2025
Bangerter, EdwardIndividualIndividual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2025
Bangerter, JohnathanIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2025
Barney, JanettIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2012
Beeman, RaymondIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE09/22/2022
Boardman, LauraIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE09/22/2022
Brown, GaryIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2011
Darby, MeganIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2025
Gatherum, JasonIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2025
Hale, FredrickIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE09/22/2022
Hansen, KentIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2025
Langford, ScottIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2018
Mikesell, BradleyIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE09/22/2022
Moss, TylerIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2018
Neves, CourtneyIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2025
Novak, KirstenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2025
Novak, KirstenIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2025
Oakden, RichardIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2010

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Cascades at Orchard Park19.8 miOrem, UT★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 1 closest →

All facilities in Heber City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 465147.