Utah · Salt Lake City

Legacy Village of Sugar House.

Care Facility160 bedsDementia-trained staff(801) 486-6000
Peer rank
Top 32% of Utah memory care
See full peer rank →
Facility · Salt Lake City
A 160-bed Care Facility with 2 citations on file.
Licensed beds
160
Last inspection
Mar 2025
Last citation
Jan 2025
Operated by
Snapshot

A large home, reviewed on public record.

Peer Comparison

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.

Severity rank
54th%
Weighted citations per bed.
peer median
0
100
Repeat rank
Not enough repeat citations
among peers to rank.
Repeat deficiencies as share of total.
Frequency rank
49th%
Deficiencies per inspection.
peer median
0
100

Rankings based on 36-month DLBC inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.

Save for comparison:
The Record

Citation history, plotted month by month.

2 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.

Peer median 1 · dashed
Last citation: JAN 2025. Compared against peer median (dashed).
peer median
JAN 2025
Sep 2024as of Aug 2026

Finding distribution

2 total · 36 months

Scope × Severity (CMS A–L)

Isolated
Pattern
Widespread
Sev 4 · IJ
J
K
L
Sev 3
G1
H
I
Sev 2
D
E
F
Sev 1
A1
B
C
Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

6 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Plain-language summaries open first — click into any row for the full citation text.

6
reports on file
2
total deficiencies
2025-12-23
Complaint Investigation
No findings
2025-08-06
Complaint Investigation
No findings
2025-03-27
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings
2025-01-21
Annual Compliance Visit
Serious · 1 finding

Plain-language summary

During an annual licensing inspection, the facility was found to have admitted a resident who did not meet the criteria for Type II memory care licensing. Specifically, one resident reviewed was unable to evacuate the facility with only the limited assistance of one staff member, which is required for Type II facilities. This noncompliance indicates the resident's care needs may have exceeded what the facility is licensed to provide.

Facility Watch · Premium

Monitor this facility.

We'll notify you if anything changes.

Official inspection and license-record changes for Legacy Village of Sugar House, plus news, public reviews, and complaint mentions across the web — usually within a day of appearing online. Nothing is swept under the rug.

  • Official inspection and license-record alerts (included)
  • Broader web mentions: news, enforcement, lawsuits, closures
  • Public review and complaint mentions online
  • Source-linked alerts, usually within a day

$9/month or $59/year · Cancel anytime

Payment is processed by Stripe. Monitoring is activated within one business day. Web and review mentions are best-effort from what we can find publicly. Cancel anytime from your billing link.

Read full citation text (1)
SeriousR432-270-11(5)(a-c)
Verbatim citation text · R432-270-11(5)(a-c)

The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that a resident met admission criteria for the type II license. During the inspection, 1 residents’ assessment and their ability to evacuate was reviewed. The resident was not capable of evacuating the facility with the limited assistance of one person.

Read raw inspector notes

[R432-270-11(5)(a-c)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that a resident met admission criteria for the type II license. During the inspection, 1 residents’ assessment and their ability to evacuate was reviewed. The resident was not capable of evacuating the facility with the limited assistance of one person.

2024-11-05
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings
2024-10-15
Complaint Investigation
Standard · 1 finding

Plain-language summary

An inspection found that the facility had two employees working in positions involving direct contact with residents even though background check determinations had made them ineligible for such roles. This violated state rules requiring facilities to ensure that individuals deemed unsuitable for direct patient access are not placed in those positions. The noncompliance was cited during the inspection visit.

Read full citation text (1)
StandardR432-35-4(6)
Verbatim citation text · R432-35-4(6)

The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that covered individuals who were determined not eligible for direct patient access were not engaged in a position with direct patient access. During the inspection, the licensor observed that 2 individuals working in the facility had been determined not eligible for direct patient access.

Read raw inspector notes

[R432-35-4(6)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that covered individuals who were determined not eligible for direct patient access were not engaged in a position with direct patient access. During the inspection, the licensor observed that 2 individuals working in the facility had been determined not eligible for direct patient access.

Family reviews

No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience

Related in this city

Other memory care options nearby.

Is this listing wrong? Report an issue →
Reports help us maintain accurate facility information. Your report will be reviewed within 1-2 business days.