Good Life Senior Living Price.
Good Life Senior Living Price is Ranked in the bottom 49% of Utah memory care with 3 DLBC citations on record; last inspected Jul 2024.
A medium home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 16 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
Good Life Senior Living Price has 3 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.
3 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
3 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.
2024-07-15Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-06-25Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During the annual inspection, the facility was found out of compliance with fingerprinting requirements for background clearance, with one employee's fingerprints still pending submission beyond the required 15 working days. This same violation had been cited twice before during a complaint investigation in January 2024 and a re-licensure inspection in May 2024, indicating the facility has not corrected this longstanding issue.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that covered individuals submitted fingerprints within 15 working days of their engagement. During the inspection, employee data in the Direct Access Clearance system was reviewed. One employees’ status was pending, due fingerprints not being completed. This non-compliance was previously cited during the complaint inspection conducted on 1/8/2024 and the re-licensure inspection conducted on 5/7/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-35-4(2)(a)-(b)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that covered individuals submitted fingerprints within 15 working days of their engagement. During the inspection, employee data in the Direct Access Clearance system was reviewed. One employees’ status was pending, due fingerprints not being completed. This non-compliance was previously cited during the complaint inspection conducted on 1/8/2024 and the re-licensure inspection conducted on 5/7/2024.
2024-05-07Annual Compliance VisitSerious · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During this annual inspection, the facility was found to have admitted and kept a resident who did not meet the facility's admission criteria, failed to investigate multiple grievances that suggested a resident may have been abused by staff, and admitted a resident requiring a secure unit without having approved secure unit beds in place. The provider was cited for noncompliance with administrator duties, abuse and neglect investigation requirements, and secure unit bed standards. Corrections to address these violations will be required.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the administrator fulfilled their duties as outlined in regulations. During the inspection, it was determined that the administrator admitted and retained a resident who did not meet admission criteria.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the licensee had secure unit beds before admitting a resident who required a secure unit. During the inspection, it was discovered that the facility was operating as a secured unit, due to a resident who wandered, and did not have approved secure unit beds.”
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 administrator fulfilled their duties as outlined in regulations. During the inspection, it was determined that the administrator admitted and retained a resident who did not meet admission criteria. [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 or neglect. During the inspection, incident reports and grievances were reviewed, several grievances, all reported at the same time, indicated that a resident may have been subjected to abuse by a staff member. [R432-270-16(1)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the licensee had secure unit beds before admitting a resident who required a secure unit. During the inspection, it was discovered that the facility was operating as a secured unit, due to a resident who wandered, and did not have approved secure unit beds.
Other facilities in Price.
Other memory care facilities near Price with similar care offerings.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience