Beehive Homes of Spanish Fork.
Beehive Homes of Spanish Fork is Ranked in the bottom 7% of Utah memory care with 6 DLBC citations on record; last inspected Jan 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 Spanish Fork has 6 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.
6 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
6 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.
2025-01-08Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-12-02Annual Compliance VisitStandard · 4 findings
Plain-language summary
During this annual inspection, the facility was cited for noncompliance in four areas, all of which had been previously cited in August and October 2024. Direct care staff were not wearing required identification badges, the facility was operating as a secured unit without approval to do so, fire doors were not closing securely, and two employees working alone at night lacked documented first aid and CPR training. These violations represent repeated noncompliance issues that had not been corrected since the earlier inspection visits.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that employees who provided direct care to a patient wore an identification badge. During the inspection, 3 direct care employees who were observed to be providing direct care were not wearing an identification badge. This non-compliance was previously cited on 8/14/2024 and 10/10/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by operating a secured facility without approved secure unit beds. During the inspection, the facility was observed to be secure/locked and the facility had not been approved to function as a secure unit. This non-compliance was previously cited on 8/14/2024 and 10/10/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the maintenance of the fire rated construction and assemblies were maintained in accordance with Rule R710-3, Fire Marshal. During the inspection, the fire doors were observed to not close securely. This non-compliance was previously cited on 8/14/2024 and 10/10/2024.”
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that there was one staff on duty at all times who had training in first aid/CPR. During the inspection, two employees, who worked alone at night, did not have documented first aid/CPR training on file.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-1-4(1)(a)-(b)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that employees who provided direct care to a patient wore an identification badge. During the inspection, 3 direct care employees who were observed to be providing direct care were not wearing an identification badge. This non-compliance was previously cited on 8/14/2024 and 10/10/2024. [R432-270-16(1)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by operating a secured facility without approved secure unit beds. During the inspection, the facility was observed to be secure/locked and the facility had not been approved to function as a secure unit. This non-compliance was previously cited on 8/14/2024 and 10/10/2024. [R432-270-25(2)(a)-(d)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring the maintenance of the fire rated construction and assemblies were maintained in accordance with Rule R710-3, Fire Marshal. During the inspection, the fire doors were observed to not close securely. This non-compliance was previously cited on 8/14/2024 and 10/10/2024. [R432-270-27(1)(a)-(d)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by not ensuring that there was one staff on duty at all times who had training in first aid/CPR. During the inspection, two employees, who worked alone at night, did not have documented first aid/CPR training on file.
2024-10-10Annual Compliance VisitSerious · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During the annual inspection, the facility was found to be operating as a secured/locked unit without having received approval from the state to do so. This noncompliance had also been cited during a previous inspection on August 14, 2024, and had not been corrected. The facility was locked and restricting residents' freedom of movement without the required state authorization.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by operating a secured facility without approved secure unit beds. During the inspection, the facility was observed to be a secure/locked and the facility had not been approved to function as a secure unit. This non-compliance was previously cited on 8/14/2024.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-16(1)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by operating a secured facility without approved secure unit beds. During the inspection, the facility was observed to be a secure/locked and the facility had not been approved to function as a secure unit. This non-compliance was previously cited on 8/14/2024.
2024-08-14Annual Compliance VisitSerious · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During an annual inspection, the facility was found to be operating as a secured unit without having received approval from the state to do so. The facility was observed locking residents in and restricting their freedom of movement, but had not obtained the required licensure designation for secure unit operations. This noncompliance with state regulations means the facility was not authorized to provide the type of care it was actually delivering.
“The provider was out of compliance with this rule by operating a secured facility without approved secure unit beds. During the inspection, the facility was observed to be a secure unit and the facility had not been approved to function as a secure unit.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[R432-270-16(1)] The provider was out of compliance with this rule by operating a secured facility without approved secure unit beds. During the inspection, the facility was observed to be a secure unit and the facility had not been approved to function as a secure unit.
Other facilities in Spanish Fork.
Other memory care facilities near Spanish Fork with similar care offerings.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience