How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Stonehenge of Cedar City
333 West 1425 North, Cedar City, UT 84721 (opens Google Maps) · Iron County · (435) 267-1700· 50 certified beds · avg 43 residents/day · certified since May 1, 2003 · 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: STONEHENGE OF UTAH (5 facilities, chain avg rating 4.0★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 26, 2026
3
Serious findings on record
most recent May 19, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.92
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 · May 19, 2026 · 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 · May 19, 2026 · 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: May 12, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 26, 2026 · F-0550
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 26, 2026 · F-0550
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Why it matters: Being treated without dignity harms a resident's self-worth, mental health, and overall quality of life.
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: May 18, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 26, 2026 · F-0725 · triggered by a complaint
The 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 26, 2026 · F-0725 · triggered by a complaint
The 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.
Why it matters: Understaffing means longer waits for help, missed care, and higher risk of falls and other harm.
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: May 18, 2026 (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 keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. F-0550
The 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. · from a complaint F-0725
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2026 | ▲ 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 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0725 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 26, 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. · from a complaint · F-0804 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 26, 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 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0805 |
| Feb 5, 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 |
| Nov 30, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 1, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Dec 1, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Dec 1, 2021 | 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. · F-0609 |
| Dec 1, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Dec 1, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 1, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 1, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 1, 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 from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 3
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 9 | 3 | 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.
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: 3.92
Utah average: 3.87
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.08
Utah average: 1.17
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.38
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) | 3.92 | 3.87 | 3.95 | top 29% in Utah; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.08 | 1.17 | 0.69 | top 42% in Utah; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.38 | 3.39 | 3.50 | top 29% in Utah; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.40 | 0.88 | 0.48 | bottom 7% in Utah; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 59.0 | 50.7 | 45.8 | bottom 30% in Utah; bottom 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 42.9 | 40.6 | 42.9 | bottom 48% in Utah; bottom 49% 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 3.76, RN 1.04, weekend 3.25.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.76 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: 3/5 · 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 Stonehenge of Cedar City. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avebury Healthcare LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Avebury Healthcare LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/05/2026 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Gillespie, Deborah | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Gillespie, Deborah | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Howells, Stephen | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/1992 |
| Howells, Stephen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Howells, Stephen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Kane County Human Resource Special Service District | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Kane County Human Resource Special Service District | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/30/2026 |
| Loveless, Kurt | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Loveless, Kurt | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Loveless, Kurt | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Newman, Steven | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/19/2019 |
| Newman, Steven | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/19/2019 |
| Stemmons, Kent | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Stemmons, Kent | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
| Stonehenge of Cedar Cityut INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2021 |
All 18 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 Stonehenge of Utah — 5 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.
- Stonehenge of Ogden — Washington Terrace, UT · overall 5/5
- Stonehenge of Richfield — Richfield, UT · overall 4/5
- Stonehenge of Springville — Springville, UT · overall 5/5
- Stonehenge of American Fork — American Fork, UT · overall 4/5
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?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "Walk me through what happens when a resident or family files a grievance — who responds and how fast?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
- "How do you handle residents who need modified food textures, and how do you make those meals appetizing?"
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 59% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 18 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cedar Health and Rehabilitation | 0.1 mi | Cedar City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 465153.