The Abbington at Murray.
The Abbington at Murray is Ranked in the top 49% of Utah memory care with 5 DLBC citations on record; last inspected Oct 2025.
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 Abbington at Murray has 5 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.
5 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
5 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every DLBC visit, verbatim.
4 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-10-20Complaint InvestigationStandard · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection, the facility was found in noncompliance with background check requirements after employing an individual who had been determined ineligible for direct patient access. One of six sampled employees had been hired and allowed to work directly with residents for over a month despite failing the background check screening. The facility was required to correct this violation.
“The provider was out of compliance with R432-35-3(6) by allowing an employee who was determined not eligible for direct patient access to be employed in a position with direct patient access. During the inspection, it was determined that for 1 out of 6 sampled employees, the facility hired and continued to employ 1 individual with a background check of Not Eligible for Employment for over 1 month.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-35-3(6)] The provider was out of compliance with R432-35-3(6) by allowing an employee who was determined not eligible for direct patient access to be employed in a position with direct patient access. During the inspection, it was determined that for 1 out of 6 sampled employees, the facility hired and continued to employ 1 individual with a background check of Not Eligible for Employment for over 1 month.
2024-07-17Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-06-25Annual Compliance VisitSerious · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During an annual inspection, the facility was cited for noncompliance with abuse and neglect reporting requirements under state law. Inspectors reviewed two suspected abuse incidents and found that the facility Administrator failed to conduct thorough investigations or report the suspected neglect as required by state statute. This same violation had been cited previously on April 23, 2024.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility Administrator completed an investigation when there was reason to believe a resident had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation and reported any suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. During the inspection, two suspected abuse incidents were reviewed and it was determined that the facility Administrator did not investigate thoroughly or report the suspected neglect in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. This noncompliance was previously cited on 4/23/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility Administrator completed an investigation when there was reason to believe a resident had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation and reported any suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. During the inspection, two suspected abuse incidents were reviewed and it was determined that the facility Administrator did not investigate thoroughly or report the suspected neglect in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. This noncompliance was previously cited on 4/23/2024.
2024-04-23Annual Compliance VisitSerious · 3 findings
Plain-language summary
During an annual inspection, the facility was found to have noncompliance in three areas: one resident was unable to evacuate the facility with the assistance of one staff member, contrary to Type II facility requirements; the facility administrator failed to report a suspected neglect incident in accordance with state law; and hot water temperatures in public and resident care areas exceeded the safe maximum of 120 degrees Fahrenheit. These findings indicate the facility was not meeting state licensing standards for resident safety, abuse reporting, and facility operations.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the Type II facility accepted and retained residents who were capable of evacuating the facility with the limited assistance of one (1) person. During the inspection, one (1) resident was observed to not be able to evacuate the facility with the limited assistance of one (1) person.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility Administrator reported any suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. During the inspection, one (1) neglect investigation was reviewed and it was determined that the facility Administrator did not report the suspected neglect in accordance with Section 62A-3-305.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring hot water delivered to public and resident care areas was maintained at temperatures between 105-120 degrees Fahrenheit. During the inspection, the licensor observed that water temperatures exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-11(5)(a-c)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the Type II facility accepted and retained residents who were capable of evacuating the facility with the limited assistance of one (1) person. During the inspection, one (1) resident was observed to not be able to evacuate the facility with the limited assistance of one (1) person. [R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility Administrator reported any suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. During the inspection, one (1) neglect investigation was reviewed and it was determined that the facility Administrator did not report the suspected neglect in accordance with Section 62A-3-305. [R432-270-25(5)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring hot water delivered to public and resident care areas was maintained at temperatures between 105-120 degrees Fahrenheit. During the inspection, the licensor observed that water temperatures exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience