Escalante at Coventry II.
Escalante at Coventry II is Ranked in the top 49% of Utah memory care with 6 DLBC citations on record; last inspected Feb 2026.
A medium home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 29 Utah facilities with a similar number of beds.
Care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: Utah Dept. of Health & Human Services · Division of Licensing and Background Checks.
among peers to rank.
Rankings based on 36-month CDSS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.
FACILITY WATCH · BETA
Escalante at Coventry II has 6 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
6 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
6 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every DLBC visit, verbatim.
6 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-02-10Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-10-08Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-08-20Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 4 findings
Plain-language summary
During this annual inspection, the facility was found out of compliance with four rules, all of which had been cited in previous inspections dating back to May 2024. Noncompliances included the absence of written policies defining nursing services, fire doors on the secure unit that lacked proper safety devices and did not close properly, failure to conduct required semi-annual disaster drills with resident participation and documentation, and the lack of an emergency evacuation plan specific to the secure unit. These deficiencies remain unresolved from prior inspection cycles.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that facility spaces were safe, operable, in good repair and in compliance with Rule R432-6. During the inspection, an environmental tour of the secure unit was conducted. Multiple fire doors did not have astragal devices and a large gap between the doors, when shut, was observed. One fire door would not close due to getting caught on the other fire door. This noncompliance was previously cited on 5/1/2024 and 7/16/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not providing personnel and residents with instruction and training in accordance with the plans to respond appropriately in an emergency. The licensee did not: hold simulated disaster drills semi-annually in accordance with Rule R710-3; and document participants, problems encountered, and the ability of resident to evacuate. During the inspection, no disaster drills were provided, the fire drill provided did not include resident participants or their ability to evacuate. This noncompliance was previously cited on 5/1/2024 and 7/16/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not providing an emergency evacuation plan on the secure unit that addressed the ability of the secure unit staff to evacuate the residents in case of emergency. During the inspection, the provider did not provide an emergency evacuation plan for the secure unit that addressed the ability of the secure unit staff to evacuate the residents in case of emergency. This noncompliance was previously cited on the 5/1/2024.and 7/16/2024 inspections.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring written policies and procedures were developed defining the level of nursing services provided by the facility. During the inspection, no policy that defined the level of nursing services provided by the facility was provided. This noncompliance was previously cited on 5/1/2024 and 7/16/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-15(1)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring written policies and procedures were developed defining the level of nursing services provided by the facility. During the inspection, no policy that defined the level of nursing services provided by the facility was provided. This noncompliance was previously cited on 5/1/2024 and 7/16/2024. [R432-270-25(1)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that facility spaces were safe, operable, in good repair and in compliance with Rule R432-6. During the inspection, an environmental tour of the secure unit was conducted. Multiple fire doors did not have astragal devices and a large gap between the doors, when shut, was observed. One fire door would not close due to getting caught on the other fire door. This noncompliance was previously cited on 5/1/2024 and 7/16/2024. [R432-270-26(8)(a)-(d)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not providing personnel and residents with instruction and training in accordance with the plans to respond appropriately in an emergency. The licensee did not: hold simulated disaster drills semi-annually in accordance with Rule R710-3; and document participants, problems encountered, and the ability of resident to evacuate. During the inspection, no disaster drills were provided, the fire drill provided did not include resident participants or their ability to evacuate. This noncompliance was previously cited on 5/1/2024 and 7/16/2024. [R432-270-16(5)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not providing an emergency evacuation plan on the secure unit that addressed the ability of the secure unit staff to evacuate the residents in case of emergency. During the inspection, the provider did not provide an emergency evacuation plan for the secure unit that addressed the ability of the secure unit staff to evacuate the residents in case of emergency. This noncompliance was previously cited on the 5/1/2024.and 7/16/2024 inspections.
2024-07-16Annual Compliance VisitSerious · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During the annual inspection, the facility was cited for noncompliance with two administrative requirements: failing to investigate incident reports from the prior 90 days that alleged abuse, and failing to designate a competent employee in writing to act as administrator when the administrator was unavailable. This was the second citation for these same violations, as they were previously cited on May 1, 2024.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not completing an investigation when there was reason to believe a resident had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation and by not having the administrator designate, in writing, a competent employee, 21 years of age or older, to act as administrator when the administrator was unavailable for immediate contact. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed incident reports for the previous 90 days. Incident report's were identified that alleged abuse and were not investigated and the licensor requested the administrative designee letter and no letter was provided. This noncompliance was previously cited on 5/1/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not completing an investigation when there was reason to believe a resident had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation and by not having the administrator designate, in writing, a competent employee, 21 years of age or older, to act as administrator when the administrator was unavailable for immediate contact. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed incident reports for the previous 90 days. Incident report's were identified that alleged abuse and were not investigated and the licensor requested the administrative designee letter and no letter was provided. This noncompliance was previously cited on 5/1/2024.
2024-05-13Complaint InvestigationSerious · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection, the licensor reviewed incident reports from the previous 90 days and found that the facility failed to conduct investigations into reports of alleged abuse, neglect, or exploitation as required by state licensing rules. The facility was cited for noncompliance with the investigation requirement under R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p). This means that when potential abuse or harm to residents was reported, the facility did not properly look into what happened.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not completing an investigation when there was reason to believe a resident had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed incident reports for the previous 90 days. Incident report's were identified that alleged abuse and were not investigated.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not completing an investigation when there was reason to believe a resident had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed incident reports for the previous 90 days. Incident report's were identified that alleged abuse and were not investigated.
2024-05-01Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Other facilities in Cottonwood Heights.
Other memory care facilities near Cottonwood Heights with similar care offerings.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience