Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Brighton Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen, with a cook serving meals without gloves while wearing artificial nails, and various unsanitary conditions observed, such as spilled coffee, food debris, and dirty utensils. The dietary manager acknowledged the issues and noted the cleaning schedule, while a dietary aide emphasized the importance of maintaining cleanliness.
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program, with deficiencies observed in PPE use, vaccination practices, and equipment disinfection. A nurse did not wear a gown while providing care to a resident on enhanced barrier precautions. During a vaccination clinic, technicians did not follow proper infection control practices, such as removing gloves and sanitizing equipment. Additionally, vital signs equipment was not disinfected between uses. These actions were contrary to CDC guidelines and noted by the infection preventionist.
A resident with multiple health conditions developed a pressure ulcer on the left heel, which was not properly assessed or documented by the LTC facility. The care plan was not updated in a timely manner, and discrepancies in wound status documentation were noted. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the resident's wound care, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility failed to effectively track and monitor long-term antibiotic use for two residents, as required by the CDC's Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship. One resident was on Macrodantin for UTI prophylaxis without a specified duration, lacking a risk versus benefit statement and care plan. Another resident was also on Macrodantin without a specified duration, and a pharmacist's recommendation for a risk assessment was not addressed. The facility did not follow its protocol for monitoring prophylactic antibiotics.
Sanitation Deficiencies in Kitchen Operations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper sanitary conditions in the main kitchen, as observed during a survey. Specifically, a cook was seen assembling and serving meal plates to residents while wearing artificial nails with nail polish and without gloves, which is against the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Regulations. The dietary manager acknowledged awareness of the requirement for staff with artificial nails to wear gloves but was unsure if the cook was informed. The food and nutrition resource confirmed that the cook was the only staff member with artificial nails and would be educated on proper glove use. Additionally, the kitchen was found to be in an unsanitary condition during a tour. Observations included spilled coffee, debris, and a yellow towel behind the ice machine, crumbs and food debris under preparation tables, and a drawer with clean utensils lined with a dirty shelf liner. Other issues included a dirty can opener blade, food crumbs in the freezer, a vent covered with dirt and lint, and dirty dry food bin lids and containers. Uncovered pumpkin pies were stored in a baking rack with crumbs, and clean utensils were found in tubs with crumbs. Interviews with the dietary manager revealed that the utensil drawers and dry bins were scheduled for cleaning twice a month, and the manager conducted almost daily walkthroughs to ensure tasks were completed. The manager also mentioned that some deep cleaning tasks could not be performed during the day due to the need to move items. A dietary aide expressed confidence in the staff's ability to complete cleaning tasks and emphasized the importance of maintaining kitchen cleanliness over time.
Infection Control Deficiencies in PPE Use, Vaccination Practices, and Equipment Disinfection
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program, as evidenced by several deficiencies observed during a survey. One significant issue was the failure of a wound care nurse to don appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care to a resident on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). Despite a sign on the resident's door indicating the need for gloves and a protective gown, the nurse entered the room and performed wound care without wearing a gown. This oversight was acknowledged by the nurse, who admitted forgetting to don the gown, and was confirmed by the infection preventionist. Another deficiency was observed during a vaccination clinic held in the facility's lobby. Technicians administering vaccinations failed to follow proper infection control practices. One technician did not remove gloves after administering a vaccine and touched a resident's wheelchair, while another placed a used alcohol swab on a receptionist's table and reused timers without sanitizing them. Additionally, a technician stored used syringes in a pocket instead of disposing of them immediately in a sharps container. These actions were contrary to CDC guidelines and were noted by the infection preventionist. The facility also failed to ensure that vital signs equipment was disinfected before and after each use. A certified nurse aide used the same equipment on multiple residents without sanitizing it between uses or before storing it in a clean utility room. This practice was inconsistent with CDC recommendations for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities. The infection preventionist and other staff confirmed that the equipment should have been sanitized with wipes after each use.
Failure to Update Wound Care Plan and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, specifically in the assessment and care planning of a wound. The resident, who was over the age of 65 and admitted with multiple diagnoses including a fractured left tibia, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, and acute kidney failure, developed a pressure ulcer on the left heel. The initial admission assessment did not document any open areas or skin conditions on the resident's left heel, and the care plan was not updated in a timely manner to reflect the new wound status. The resident's pressure ulcer care plan was not revised to include the left heel ulcer until several months after it was first documented by an orthopedic physician. The care plan interventions were not updated until much later, despite the wound being documented as a stage 3 pressure ulcer by the wound physician. Additionally, the facility's documentation failed to accurately reflect the resident's wound status, with discrepancies noted in the nutrition and dietary notes, which incorrectly documented a stage 4 pressure ulcer. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the resident's wound status and care plan. The Director of Nursing and other staff members were unsure of the origin of certain documentation and failed to include critical risk factors such as the resident's diabetes and use of a splint in the care plan. The facility's failure to update the care plan and accurately document the resident's wound status contributed to the deficiency in providing appropriate treatment and care.
Deficiency in Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to establish an effective antibiotic stewardship program, specifically in tracking and monitoring the use of long-term antibiotics for two residents. According to the CDC's Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship for Nursing Homes, facilities should perform reviews on resident medical records for new antibiotic starts to ensure compliance with facility policies. However, the facility did not effectively track the use of Macrodantin for UTI prophylaxis in two residents, as there was no indication of the duration for the antibiotic use, nor was there documentation of risk versus benefit assessments or care plans for long-term antibiotic use. Resident #60, an 81-year-old with moderate cognitive impairment, was on Macrodantin for UTI prophylaxis without a specified duration. The facility's records lacked a risk versus benefit statement for the long-term use of the antibiotic and did not include a care plan addressing this need. Additionally, there was no documentation from the infection preventionist (IP) to justify the physician's order using McGeer's criteria, nor was there monitoring of the resident's long-term antibiotic use in the infection surveillance documents. Resident #50, with severe cognitive impairment, was also on Macrodantin for UTI prophylaxis without a specified duration. A pharmacist had recommended a risk versus benefit assessment and potential discontinuation of the antibiotic, but there was no physician response documented. The facility's protocol for monitoring prophylactic antibiotics was not followed, as there was no documentation of a failed trial off Macrodantin or a physician's note justifying the long-term use of the antibiotic after the trial failure.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 381 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 5 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Brighton
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riverdale Post Acute | 0.6 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
| Skylake Post Acute | 8.8 mi | — | 13 | 0 |
| Villas At Sunny Acres, The | 10.9 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Malley Transitional Care Center | 11 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Center At Northridge, Llc, The | 11.5 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Brighton Care Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.