Beehive Homes of Salt Lake City.
Beehive Homes of Salt Lake City is Ranked in the bottom 18% of Utah memory care with 10 DLBC citations on record; last inspected Dec 2025.
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.
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
Beehive Homes of Salt Lake City has 10 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.
10 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
10 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.
2025-12-15Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-07-09Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-05-20Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During the annual inspection, the facility was found out of compliance with emergency and disaster response planning requirements; specifically, the emergency plan did not include procedures for recruiting additional help and supplies after an emergency, delivering care if the facility housed extra residents during a disaster, or maintaining essential services if staff were reduced by an emergency. This noncompliance was a repeat finding from prior inspections dating back to January 2024 and had not been corrected despite two follow-up visits. The facility was required to update its emergency plan to address these deficiencies.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the emergency and disaster response plan addressed all of the response plans required by the rule. During the third follow up inspection, the licensor requested the emergency and disaster response plan that included the instructions on how to recruit additional help, supplies, and equipment to meet the resident's needs after an emergency or disaster; delivery of essential care and services if additional persons were housed in the facility during any emergency; and delivery of essential care and services to facility occupants if personnel were reduced by an emergency. The owner did not have the response plans included in the emergency and disaster response plan. This is a repeat non-compliance from the re-licensure inspection, dated 1/8/2024, and the follow-up inspections, dated 3/13/2024 and 4/15/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-26(6)(a)-(j)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the emergency and disaster response plan addressed all of the response plans required by the rule. During the third follow up inspection, the licensor requested the emergency and disaster response plan that included the instructions on how to recruit additional help, supplies, and equipment to meet the resident's needs after an emergency or disaster; delivery of essential care and services if additional persons were housed in the facility during any emergency; and delivery of essential care and services to facility occupants if personnel were reduced by an emergency. The owner did not have the response plans included in the emergency and disaster response plan. This is a repeat non-compliance from the re-licensure inspection, dated 1/8/2024, and the follow-up inspections, dated 3/13/2024 and 4/15/2024.
2024-04-15Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During this annual inspection, the facility was found out of compliance with emergency planning requirements because its emergency and disaster response plan did not include procedures for recruiting additional help and supplies during emergencies, housing extra residents if needed, or maintaining care if staff were reduced. The facility was also out of compliance with staff training requirements, as five employees lacked documented annual in-service training relevant to their job duties.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the emergency and disaster response plan addressed all of the response plans required by the rule. During the second follow up inspection, the licensor requested the emergency and disaster response plan that included the instructions on how to recruit additional help, supplies, and equipment to meet the resident's needs after an emergency or disaster; delivery of essential care and services if additional persons were housed in the facility during any emergency; and delivery of essential care and services to facility occupants if personnel were reduced by an emergency. The owner did not have the response plans included in the emergency and disaster response plan.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring employees received documented in-service training that was tailored to annually include subjects relevant to the employee's job responsibilities. During the inspection, five (5) employees were not documented to have received all required annual in-service training relevant to their job responsibilities.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-26(6)(a)-(j)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the emergency and disaster response plan addressed all of the response plans required by the rule. During the second follow up inspection, the licensor requested the emergency and disaster response plan that included the instructions on how to recruit additional help, supplies, and equipment to meet the resident's needs after an emergency or disaster; delivery of essential care and services if additional persons were housed in the facility during any emergency; and delivery of essential care and services to facility occupants if personnel were reduced by an emergency. The owner did not have the response plans included in the emergency and disaster response plan. [R432-270-9(9)(a)-(l)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring employees received documented in-service training that was tailored to annually include subjects relevant to the employee's job responsibilities. During the inspection, five (5) employees were not documented to have received all required annual in-service training relevant to their job responsibilities.
2024-03-13Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 6 findings
Plain-language summary
During this annual inspection, the facility was found noncompliant in six areas: failing to timely update background clearance status for a current employee, not including required emergency response procedures in their disaster plan, not tracking medication errors in quality improvement meetings, not documenting secure unit placement in one resident's admission agreement, not completing tuberculosis skin tests for four employees within the required timeframe, and not providing documented annual training to seven employees. The facility did not demonstrate correction of the emergency response plan deficiency when reinspected. These findings indicate gaps in documentation, staff health screening, employee training, and emergency preparedness protocols.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the Direct Access Clearance System (DACS) reflected the current status of a covered individual within 5 working days of engagement. During the inspection, 1 current employee was observed to be linked to the facility in DACS after 5 days of engagement.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the emergency and disaster response plan addressed all of the response plans required by the rule. During the follow up inspection, the licensor requested the emergency and disaster response plan that included the instructions on how to recruit additional help, supplies, and equipment to meet the resident's needs after an emergency or disaster; delivery of essential care and services if additional persons were housed in the facility during any emergency; and delivery of essential care and services to facility occupants if personnel were reduced by an emergency. The owner did not have the response plans included in the emergency and disaster response plan.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not incorporating medication errors into the facility's quality improvement process. During the inspection, the quality assurance meeting minutes for the previous quarter was reviewed. The facility was not observed to have incorporated medication errors into the facility's quality improvement process.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that each resident admitted to a secure unit had an admission agreement that indicated placement in the secure unit. During the inspection, 1 secure unit resident file was reviewed and did not contain an admission agreement that indicated placement in the secure unit.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring 4 employees were skin-tested for tuberculosis within 2 weeks of initial hiring. During the inspection, a sample of employee files were reviewed and 4 employees did not have documentation of a tuberculosis skin-test within 2 weeks of initial hiring.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring employees received documented in-service training that tailored the training to annually include subjects relevant to the employee's job responsibilities. During the inspection, 7 employees were not documented to have received all required annual in-service training.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-35-4(3)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the Direct Access Clearance System (DACS) reflected the current status of a covered individual within 5 working days of engagement. During the inspection, 1 current employee was observed to be linked to the facility in DACS after 5 days of engagement. [R432-270-26(6)(a)-(j)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the emergency and disaster response plan addressed all of the response plans required by the rule. During the follow up inspection, the licensor requested the emergency and disaster response plan that included the instructions on how to recruit additional help, supplies, and equipment to meet the resident's needs after an emergency or disaster; delivery of essential care and services if additional persons were housed in the facility during any emergency; and delivery of essential care and services to facility occupants if personnel were reduced by an emergency. The owner did not have the response plans included in the emergency and disaster response plan. [R432-270-19(16)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not incorporating medication errors into the facility's quality improvement process. During the inspection, the quality assurance meeting minutes for the previous quarter was reviewed. The facility was not observed to have incorporated medication errors into the facility's quality improvement process. [R432-270-16(2)(a)-(b)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that each resident admitted to a secure unit had an admission agreement that indicated placement in the secure unit. During the inspection, 1 secure unit resident file was reviewed and did not contain an admission agreement that indicated placement in the secure unit. [R432-270-9(14)(a)-(g)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring 4 employees were skin-tested for tuberculosis within 2 weeks of initial hiring. During the inspection, a sample of employee files were reviewed and 4 employees did not have documentation of a tuberculosis skin-test within 2 weeks of initial hiring. [R432-270-9(9)(a)-(l)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring employees received documented in-service training that tailored the training to annually include subjects relevant to the employee's job responsibilities. During the inspection, 7 employees were not documented to have received all required annual in-service training.
2024-01-08Annual Compliance VisitSerious · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During an annual inspection, noncompliance was cited because the facility failed to ensure residents were free from chemical restraint. One resident was found to be receiving chemical restraint in violation of licensing requirements. The facility was required to correct this noncompliance.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring residents were free from chemical restraint. During the inspection, 1 resident was found to not be free from chemical restraint.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-10(5)(a)-(x)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring residents were free from chemical restraint. During the inspection, 1 resident was found to not be free from chemical restraint.
Other facilities in Salt Lake City.
Other memory care facilities near Salt Lake City with similar care offerings.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
Other memory care options nearby.
Sunrise at Holladay
Salt Lake City
The Ridge Foothill
Salt Lake City
Legacy Village of Sugar House
Salt Lake City
Monument Healthcare Cottonwood Creek
Salt Lake City
Holladay Healthcare Center
Salt Lake City
Monument Healthcare Taylorsville
Salt Lake City
William E Christoffersen Salt Lake Veterans Home
Salt Lake City
Midtown Manor
Salt Lake City