The Valencia at Cottonwood Heights.
The Valencia at Cottonwood Heights is Ranked in the top 42% of Utah memory care with 4 DLBC citations on record; last inspected Mar 2026.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 38 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
The Valencia at Cottonwood Heights has 4 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.
4 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
4 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every DLBC visit, verbatim.
8 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-03-25Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2025-08-07Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2025-06-30Complaint InvestigationStandard · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection, the facility was found out of compliance with job training requirements for direct-care employees. One employee did not have the required 16 hours of documented one-on-one training with an experienced staff member or supervising nurse on file. This same violation had been cited previously on July 22, 2024.
“The Licensee was out of compliance with R432-270-9(8) by not providing each direct-care employee with 16 hours of documented one-on-one job training with a direct-care employee, with at least three months of experience and who had completed orientation, or with the supervising nurse at the facility. During the inspection 1 employee did not have 16 hours of documented one-on-one job training in file. <br/><br/>This was previously cited on July 22, 2024 inspection.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-9(8)(a)-(c)] The Licensee was out of compliance with R432-270-9(8) by not providing each direct-care employee with 16 hours of documented one-on-one job training with a direct-care employee, with at least three months of experience and who had completed orientation, or with the supervising nurse at the facility. During the inspection 1 employee did not have 16 hours of documented one-on-one job training in file. <br/><br/>This was previously cited on July 22, 2024 inspection.
2024-10-08Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-09-11Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During the annual inspection, noncompliance was cited for medication administration errors affecting three residents who did not receive their medications as prescribed. This violation of medication management requirements had been previously cited twice, on April 22, 2024 and July 22, 2024. The facility has a pattern of failing to ensure medications are given according to doctor's orders.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that medications were administered according to the prescribed order. During the inspection, 3 residents did not receive their medications as prescribed. This non-compliance was previously cited on 4/22/2024 and 7/22/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-19(7)(a)-(f)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that medications were administered according to the prescribed order. During the inspection, 3 residents did not receive their medications as prescribed. This non-compliance was previously cited on 4/22/2024 and 7/22/2024.
2024-05-20Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-03-21Complaint InvestigationSerious · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection of abuse and neglect reporting procedures, the facility was found out of compliance with state rules requiring investigation and reporting of suspected abuse. In one case, staff did not report suspected abuse by a staff member to Adult Protective Services, and in another case, the facility failed to investigate or report potential emotional abuse by a family member after a resident's fall. The facility did not complete required documentation showing these incidents were reported to the appropriate authorities.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring an investigation was completed when there was a reason to believe that a resident had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation and by not reporting suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. During the inspection, incident reports and abuse investigation for the last 60 days were reviewed. One abuse investigation report of potential staff to resident abuse was not observed to have documentation that the provider reported the suspected abuse to Adult Protective Services (APS). Another incident report revealed that resident experienced potential emotional abuse by her family member after she had a fall and complained of pain and the facility did not conduct an investigation or report it to APS.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring an investigation was completed when there was a reason to believe that a resident had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation and by not reporting suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. During the inspection, incident reports and abuse investigation for the last 60 days were reviewed. One abuse investigation report of potential staff to resident abuse was not observed to have documentation that the provider reported the suspected abuse to Adult Protective Services (APS). Another incident report revealed that resident experienced potential emotional abuse by her family member after she had a fall and complained of pain and the facility did not conduct an investigation or report it to APS.
2024-01-09Complaint InvestigationModerate · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection, the facility was found to be out of compliance with recordkeeping requirements because incident and injury reports were not being properly maintained or made available for review. Inspectors requested incident reports documenting resident injuries, elopement, fights, suspected abuse, and other events affecting resident health and safety, but the facility could not provide them. This noncompliance means there is no documented record of significant events that occurred at the facility.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring written incident and injury reports were maintained to document resident injuries, elopement, fights, suspected abuse, and other situations or circumstances that affected the health, safety, or well-being of residents. During the inspection, several incident reports for multiple residents were requested and were not provided.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-21(6)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring written incident and injury reports were maintained to document resident injuries, elopement, fights, suspected abuse, and other situations or circumstances that affected the health, safety, or well-being of residents. During the inspection, several incident reports for multiple residents were requested and were not provided.
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