Utah ›Cedar City

Stonehenge of Cedar City

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 19, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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, isolatedThe 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, isolatedThe 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, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2021F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882
Dec 1, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Dec 1, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
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.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202180F
202310D
202510D
202693G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

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: 3.92
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.

MeasureThis facilityUtah avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.923.873.95top 29% in Utah; top 43% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.081.170.69top 42% in Utah; top 13% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.383.393.50top 29% in Utah; top 48% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.400.880.48bottom 7% in Utah; top 48% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)59.050.745.8bottom 30% in Utah; bottom 18% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)42.940.642.9bottom 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Avebury Healthcare LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2025
Avebury Healthcare LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/05/2026
Ensign Services INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2025
Gillespie, DeborahIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Gillespie, DeborahIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Howells, StephenIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/20/1992
Howells, StephenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Howells, StephenIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Kane County Human Resource Special Service DistrictOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Kane County Human Resource Special Service DistrictOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/30/2026
Loveless, KurtIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Loveless, KurtIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Loveless, KurtIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Newman, StevenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/19/2019
Newman, StevenIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/19/2019
Stemmons, KentIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Stemmons, KentIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021
Stonehenge of Cedar Cityut INCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/25/2021

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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Cedar Health and Rehabilitation0.1 miCedar City, UT★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 1 closest →

All facilities in Cedar City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 465153.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details