Petersen Farms Assisted Living and Memory Care.
Petersen Farms Assisted Living and Memory Care is Ranked in the bottom 9% of Utah memory care with 17 DLBC citations on record; last inspected May 2025.
A medium home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 29 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
Petersen Farms Assisted Living and Memory Care has 17 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.
17 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
17 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every DLBC visit, verbatim.
13 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-05-29Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2025-04-30Complaint InvestigationStandard · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection, the facility was found to be out of compliance with maintenance requirements because the facility phones were not operable and in good repair. The facility did not have a written preventive maintenance schedule in place to ensure that equipment, including phones, was properly maintained. This noncompliance was cited under Utah licensing rules requiring facilities to conduct maintenance according to a documented schedule.
“The Licensee was out of compliance with R432-270-25(1) by not ensuring maintenance, including preventive maintenance, was conducted according to a written schedule, to ensure facility equipment was operable, in good repair, and in compliance with Rule R432-6. During the inspection, the facility phones were not found to be operable and in good repair.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-25(1)] The Licensee was out of compliance with R432-270-25(1) by not ensuring maintenance, including preventive maintenance, was conducted according to a written schedule, to ensure facility equipment was operable, in good repair, and in compliance with Rule R432-6. During the inspection, the facility phones were not found to be operable and in good repair.
2025-03-10Complaint InvestigationModerate · 4 findings
Plain-language summary
During this routine inspection, the facility was found out of compliance in several areas including failure to maintain accurate evacuation plans for hospice patients, inadequate staffing to meet residents' needs, leaving the secure memory care unit unstaffed on multiple occasions (a repeat violation from February 2024), and failure to timely report critical incidents to the state within one business day. The inspector reviewed incident reports, staffing schedules, resident assessments, and interviewed staff and residents to identify these noncompliances.
“The provider was out of compliance with R432-270-11(10)(c)(i) by not ensuring all conditions of accepting and retaining a hospice patient resident were met. During the inspection, 1 hospice patient resident’s evacuation plan was reviewed and it was not accurate.”
“The provider was out of compliance with R432-270-16(4) by not ensuring that at least one direct care staff was in the secure unit continuously. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed 2 incident reports, dated 3/6/2025 and 2/3/2025, that indicated the memory care aide had left the secure unit to assist the aide in the unsecured area of the facility.<br/><br/>This non-compliance was previously cited on 2/28/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with R380-600-7-16(a) by not ensuring the reporting of critical incidents was happening within 1 business day of the critical incident occurrence. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed a sample of incident reports and the corresponding critical incident report was not found in the department’s system.”
“The provider was out of compliance with R432-270-9(1) by not ensuring qualified direct-care staff were on the premises 24 hours a day to meet residents’ needs. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed incident reports, the staffing schedule, and a resident’s assessment; as well as conducted interviews with staff and residents. The licensor determined that, based on the information that was uncovered in the inspection, 1 resident’s needs were not being met due to inadequate staffing”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-11(10)(a)-(c)] The provider was out of compliance with R432-270-11(10)(c)(i) by not ensuring all conditions of accepting and retaining a hospice patient resident were met. During the inspection, 1 hospice patient resident’s evacuation plan was reviewed and it was not accurate. [R432-270-16(4)] The provider was out of compliance with R432-270-16(4) by not ensuring that at least one direct care staff was in the secure unit continuously. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed 2 incident reports, dated 3/6/2025 and 2/3/2025, that indicated the memory care aide had left the secure unit to assist the aide in the unsecured area of the facility.<br/><br/>This non-compliance was previously cited on 2/28/2024. [R380-600-7(16)(a)-(d)] The provider was out of compliance with R380-600-7-16(a) by not ensuring the reporting of critical incidents was happening within 1 business day of the critical incident occurrence. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed a sample of incident reports and the corresponding critical incident report was not found in the department’s system. [R432-270-9(1)(a)-(e)] The provider was out of compliance with R432-270-9(1) by not ensuring qualified direct-care staff were on the premises 24 hours a day to meet residents’ needs. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed incident reports, the staffing schedule, and a resident’s assessment; as well as conducted interviews with staff and residents. The licensor determined that, based on the information that was uncovered in the inspection, 1 resident’s needs were not being met due to inadequate staffing [R380-600-7(16)(a)-(d)] The provider was out of compliance with R380-600-7-16(a) by not ensuring the reporting of critical incidents was happening within 1 business day of the critical incident occurrence. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed a sample of incident reports and the corresponding critical incident report was not found in the department’s system. [R380-600-7(16)(a)-(d)] The provider was out of compliance with R380-600-7-16(a) by not ensuring the reporting of critical incidents was happening within 1 business day of the critical incident occurrence. During the inspection, the licensor reviewed a sample of incident reports and the corresponding critical incident report was not found in the department’s system.
2024-12-05Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-11-25Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During this annual inspection, the facility was found out of compliance with emergency preparedness requirements because it did not have approved emergency heating equipment on hand, a deficiency that had also been cited in the previous inspection on October 17, 2024. The heating equipment that was present had not been approved by the local fire jurisdiction. The facility needs to obtain and maintain emergency heating supplies that meet fire code requirements.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the emergency in- house supplies included heating equipment. During the inspection, the providers emergency heating equipment was observed and was not approved by the local fire jurisdiction. This non-compliance was previously cited on 10/17/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-26(10)(a)-(g)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the emergency in- house supplies included heating equipment. During the inspection, the providers emergency heating equipment was observed and was not approved by the local fire jurisdiction. This non-compliance was previously cited on 10/17/2024.
2024-10-17Complaint InvestigationSerious · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection, the facility was found to not have immediately reported a suspected case of resident abuse to Adult Protective Services as required by Utah law. The inspector reviewed the facility's abuse reports and investigations and determined that the provider failed to contact Adult Protective Services right away when abuse was suspected involving one resident. This violation means the facility did not follow the mandatory reporting requirement that applies when staff suspect a resident has been harmed.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that each individual who witnessed or suspected that a disabled or elder adult had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation immediately reported to the Adult Protective Services intake office in the Division of Aging and Adult Services or law enforcement. During the inspection, the providers abuse reports and investigations were reviewed. It was observed that the provider did not contact Adult Protective services immediately when it was suspected that 1 resident may have been subjected to abuse.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R380-80-4(3)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that each individual who witnessed or suspected that a disabled or elder adult had been subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation immediately reported to the Adult Protective Services intake office in the Division of Aging and Adult Services or law enforcement. During the inspection, the providers abuse reports and investigations were reviewed. It was observed that the provider did not contact Adult Protective services immediately when it was suspected that 1 resident may have been subjected to abuse.
2024-07-30Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-07-17Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-06-19Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-06-06Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-05-21Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During the annual inspection, the facility was found out of compliance with medication administration requirements because residents were not receiving medications as prescribed, a problem that has been cited repeatedly since 2022. The facility also failed to ensure its registered nurse reviewed all resident assessments and provided proper supervision of nursing services, continuing a noncompliance first identified in 2024. These violations indicate ongoing failures in core nursing and medication management practices.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring medications were administered according to the prescribed order. During the inspection, a medication administration and review of medication administration records revealed that residents were not receiving their medications as ordered. This noncompliance was previously cited during a re-licensure inspection dated 4/13/2022, was re-cited on a follow- up inspection dated 6/29/2022, re-cited on the complaint inspection dated 2/28/2024, and re-cited again on a follow-up complaint inspection dated 4/29/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility’s registered nurse reviewed nursing assessments for all residents and did not provide or supervise nursing services. During the inspection, resident assessments were reviewed and it was observed that the registered nurse did not review all resident assessments as outlined in the conditional licensing letter and did not provide and supervise routine nursing tasks. This noncompliance was previously cited during the complaint inspection dated 2/28/2024 and re-cited again on a follow-up inspection dated 4/29/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-19(7)(a)-(f)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring medications were administered according to the prescribed order. During the inspection, a medication administration and review of medication administration records revealed that residents were not receiving their medications as ordered. This noncompliance was previously cited during a re-licensure inspection dated 4/13/2022, was re-cited on a follow- up inspection dated 6/29/2022, re-cited on the complaint inspection dated 2/28/2024, and re-cited again on a follow-up complaint inspection dated 4/29/2024. [R432-270-15(3)(a)-(c)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility’s registered nurse reviewed nursing assessments for all residents and did not provide or supervise nursing services. During the inspection, resident assessments were reviewed and it was observed that the registered nurse did not review all resident assessments as outlined in the conditional licensing letter and did not provide and supervise routine nursing tasks. This noncompliance was previously cited during the complaint inspection dated 2/28/2024 and re-cited again on a follow-up inspection dated 4/29/2024.
2024-04-29Complaint InvestigationStandard · 3 findings
Plain-language summary
During this routine inspection, the facility was found out of compliance with three critical rules: medications were not being administered to residents as prescribed by their doctors, an unlicensed employee was administering medications without proper supervision and not doing so correctly or sanitarily, and the Administrator failed to report suspected abuse or neglect of residents to Adult Protective Services as required by law. All three violations had been previously cited in inspections dating back to 2022 and 2024, indicating a pattern of noncompliance. These findings reflect failures in medication management, nursing oversight, and resident safety reporting.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring medications were administered according to the prescribed order. During the inspection, a medication administration and review of medication administration records revealed that residents were not receiving their medications as ordered.<br/><br/>This noncompliance was previously cited during a re-licensure inspection dated 4/13/2022, was re-cited on a follow- up inspection dated 6/29/2022 and re-cited on the complaint inspection dated 2/28/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility’s registered nurse supervised nursing services. During the inspection, an unlicensed employee was observed administering medications to residents who were unable to do so. The unlicensed employee did not administer medications correctly and sanitarily.<br/><br/>This non-compliance was previously cited during the complaint inspection, dated 2/28/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the Administrator reported to APS (Adult Protective Services) when there was reason to believe a resident was subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation. During the inspection, incident reports from 3/13/2024 through 4/28/2024 were reviewed. The Administrator did not report to APS when a resident had been suspected to have been subjected to abuse or neglect.<br/><br/>This non-compliance was previously cited during the complaint inspection, dated 2/28/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-19(7)(a)-(f)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring medications were administered according to the prescribed order. During the inspection, a medication administration and review of medication administration records revealed that residents were not receiving their medications as ordered.<br/><br/>This noncompliance was previously cited during a re-licensure inspection dated 4/13/2022, was re-cited on a follow- up inspection dated 6/29/2022 and re-cited on the complaint inspection dated 2/28/2024. [R432-270-15(3)(a)-(c)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility’s registered nurse supervised nursing services. During the inspection, an unlicensed employee was observed administering medications to residents who were unable to do so. The unlicensed employee did not administer medications correctly and sanitarily.<br/><br/>This non-compliance was previously cited during the complaint inspection, dated 2/28/2024. [R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the Administrator reported to APS (Adult Protective Services) when there was reason to believe a resident was subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation. During the inspection, incident reports from 3/13/2024 through 4/28/2024 were reviewed. The Administrator did not report to APS when a resident had been suspected to have been subjected to abuse or neglect.<br/><br/>This non-compliance was previously cited during the complaint inspection, dated 2/28/2024.
2024-02-28Complaint InvestigationStandard · 5 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine licensing inspection, the facility was found noncompliant with multiple regulations, including failure to ensure medications were administered only under proper delegation by a registered nurse and according to prescribed orders, with one resident not receiving medications as prescribed. The facility also failed to maintain continuous direct care staff in the secured unit, did not ensure contracted nursing services were adequately provided, did not update resident assessments when significant changes in condition occurred, and did not properly document significant changes or report suspected abuse or neglect to Adult Protective Services. This medication delegation issue had been cited previously in 2022 and remained unresolved.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility staff administered medications only after delegation by a licensed health care professional and the licensee did not ensure medications were administered according to the prescribed order. During the inspection, 3 employees were observed to have medication delegations from the resident care coordinator, who was not a registered nurse. One (1) resident was identified to have not received their medications according to the prescribed order.<br/><br/>This noncompliance was previously cited during a re-licensure inspection dated 4/13/2022 and was re-cited on a follow-up inspection dated 6/29/2022.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that there was at least one direct care staff in the secured unit continuously. During the inspection, the licensee did not ensure that the secure unit had at least 1 direct care staff continuously.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not employing or contracting with a registered nurse to provide or supervise nursing services to include: general health monitoring on each resident and routine nursing tasks, including those that might be delegated to unlicensed assistive personnel in accordance with Section R156-31B-701. During the inspection, the licensee did not ensure that the contracted nurse provided nursing services.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring each residents assessment was revised and updated when there was a significant change in the resident's cognitive, medical, physical, or social condition. During the inspection, the licensor observed 1 resident had a significant change that did not have a significant change assessment completed.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the administrator maintained a log indicating any significant change in resident's condition and the facility's action or response and did not complete an investigation or report to APS (Adult Protective Services) when there was reason to believe a resident was subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation. During the inspection, the licensor observed 1 resident had a significant change that was not documented on the significant change log with changes in resident's condition and facility's action or response. Additionally, the administrator did not complete and investigation or report to APS when a resident had been suspected to have been subjected to abuse or neglect.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-19(7)(a)-(f)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the facility staff administered medications only after delegation by a licensed health care professional and the licensee did not ensure medications were administered according to the prescribed order. During the inspection, 3 employees were observed to have medication delegations from the resident care coordinator, who was not a registered nurse. One (1) resident was identified to have not received their medications according to the prescribed order.<br/><br/>This noncompliance was previously cited during a re-licensure inspection dated 4/13/2022 and was re-cited on a follow-up inspection dated 6/29/2022. [R432-270-16(4)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that there was at least one direct care staff in the secured unit continuously. During the inspection, the licensee did not ensure that the secure unit had at least 1 direct care staff continuously. [R432-270-15(3)(a)-(c)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not employing or contracting with a registered nurse to provide or supervise nursing services to include: general health monitoring on each resident and routine nursing tasks, including those that might be delegated to unlicensed assistive personnel in accordance with Section R156-31B-701. During the inspection, the licensee did not ensure that the contracted nurse provided nursing services. [R432-270-13(5)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring each residents assessment was revised and updated when there was a significant change in the resident's cognitive, medical, physical, or social condition. During the inspection, the licensor observed 1 resident had a significant change that did not have a significant change assessment completed. [R432-270-8(1)(a)-(p)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the administrator maintained a log indicating any significant change in resident's condition and the facility's action or response and did not complete an investigation or report to APS (Adult Protective Services) when there was reason to believe a resident was subjected to abuse, neglect, or exploitation. During the inspection, the licensor observed 1 resident had a significant change that was not documented on the significant change log with changes in resident's condition and facility's action or response. Additionally, the administrator did not complete and investigation or report to APS when a resident had been suspected to have been subjected to abuse or neglect.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience