Spring Gardens Mapleton.
Spring Gardens Mapleton is Ranked in the top 46% of Utah memory care with 2 DLBC citations on record; last inspected Oct 2025.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 35 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
Spring Gardens Mapleton has 2 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.
2 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
2 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every DLBC visit, verbatim.
3 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-10-22Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-03-25Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-03-05Complaint InvestigationSerious · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection, the facility was found to have failed to assist a resident who returned from the hospital with sepsis and a pressure ulcer in obtaining required daily wound care for eight days, violating the requirement to prevent deterioration of residents' conditions. The facility also admitted this same resident without ensuring its staff could meet the resident's significant medical needs, as the resident required outside hospice services that had not been arranged prior to re-admission. Noncompliance was cited on both the skilled nursing services requirement and the admissions criteria rule.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the Type II assisted living licensee assisted a resident in obtaining required skilled nursing services, in order to prevent, to the extent possible, deterioration of a condition. During the inspection, 1 resident was identified to have re-admitted to the facility from the hospital after a diagnoses of sepsis, a pressure ulcer, and a subsequent physician order for daily wound care and the Type II assisted living licensee had not assisted the resident in obtaining the required wound care for eight (8) days, in order to prevent to the extent possible, deterioration of the resident's condition.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the administrator admitted only those residents who met admissions criteria and whose needs could be met by the facility. During the inspection, 1 resident was identified as been re-admitted from the hospital with significant needs that could not be met by the facility, unless the resident had also been admitted to an outside hospice provider, and the resident had not been admitted to hospice services prior to re-admittance to the facility.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-15(5)(a)-(b)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the Type II assisted living licensee assisted a resident in obtaining required skilled nursing services, in order to prevent, to the extent possible, deterioration of a condition. During the inspection, 1 resident was identified to have re-admitted to the facility from the hospital after a diagnoses of sepsis, a pressure ulcer, and a subsequent physician order for daily wound care and the Type II assisted living licensee had not assisted the resident in obtaining the required wound care for eight (8) days, in order to prevent to the extent possible, deterioration of the resident's condition. [R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the administrator admitted only those residents who met admissions criteria and whose needs could be met by the facility. During the inspection, 1 resident was identified as been re-admitted from the hospital with significant needs that could not be met by the facility, unless the resident had also been admitted to an outside hospice provider, and the resident had not been admitted to hospice services prior to re-admittance to the facility.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience