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 Life Care Center Of Casper during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two residents did not receive care as outlined in their person-centered care plans. One cognitively intact resident with dementia and mood disorders had a care plan requiring that at least two staff be present during care, yet a CNA provided care alone, and an RN reported that staff often did not follow paired-care requirements despite expectations from the DON. Another cognitively intact resident with paraplegia and muscle weakness was care-planed for monthly, weekly, or PRN weights due to malnutrition risk, but weights were not obtained for an extended period, and a dietician documented and confirmed that no weights were taken because a scale was broken, even though another scale was available and facility policy required routine weight monitoring.
The facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect by not responding to call lights in a timely manner. Residents reported waiting up to 2 hours for assistance, and observations confirmed prolonged response times, with staff frequently passing by without offering help. Despite a policy requiring prompt responses, grievances showed ongoing issues with call light wait times.
The facility failed to accurately complete MDS assessments for three residents who experienced falls. One resident had a witnessed fall with injuries and an unwitnessed fall, but the MDS assessments incorrectly indicated no falls. Another resident had an unwitnessed fall resulting in a hip fracture, yet the MDS assessment inaccurately reported no falls. A third resident experienced multiple unwitnessed falls with no injuries, but the MDS assessments failed to document these falls. The MDS coordinator confirmed the incorrect coding.
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by the absence of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signage and PPE in rooms of residents with indwelling medical devices or wounds. Observations showed that residents with catheters, PICC lines, and wounds lacked necessary precautions, and an RN performed wound care without a gown. Interviews revealed a misunderstanding of EBP requirements.
A resident who suffered a hip fracture showed significant changes in their ability to perform ADLs, initially requiring substantial assistance and later showing improvement. Despite these changes, the facility did not complete a significant change assessment as required by the CMS RAI 3.0 guidelines, which was confirmed by the MDS coordinator.
A facility failed to limit PRN psychotropic medication to 14 days or provide a physician's rationale for extended use for a resident receiving lorazepam for anxiety and restlessness related to end-of-life care. The facility's policy required such orders to be limited to 14 days unless a documented rationale was provided, which was not done in this case.
The facility failed to protect residents from sexual abuse, as evidenced by an incident where a resident with a history of inappropriate sexual behavior was found exposing themselves to another resident. The facility's monitoring records showed lapses in supervision, and the initial allegation was not immediately reported as abuse.
Failure to Implement Person-Centered Care Plans for Paired Care and Weight Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to implement resident-centered care plans for two cognitively intact residents. For one resident with non-Alzheimer's dementia, debility, depression, and an adjustment disorder, the care plan dated 5/30/24 required that a minimum of two staff members be present while providing care. An incident report dated 8/16/25 showed that a CNA provided care to this resident without another staff member present. In an interview, the CNA confirmed providing care alone, and an RN reported that staff had often provided care to residents who were care-planed for paired care without a second staff member present. The DON stated that staff were expected to follow resident care plans, including requirements for paired care. For another resident with paraplegia and muscle weakness, the quarterly MDS and care plan dated 3/25/26 identified the resident as being at risk for malnutrition, with interventions including monthly, weekly, or PRN weights. Weight records showed the resident had been weighed at least monthly until 3/13/26, but there were no documented weights between 3/13/26 and 4/22/26. A dietician note dated 4/10/26 documented that no monthly or weekly weight was obtained due to a broken scale, and the dietician confirmed in an interview that the resident was not weighed. The DON confirmed there was a broken scale but stated staff were expected to use another facility scale and follow the resident’s care plan. Facility policy on weight monitoring required admission weights, weekly weights for four weeks, then monthly weights, and the person-centered care planning policy required development and implementation of care plans to address residents’ medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs.
Failure to Respond to Call Lights in a Timely Manner
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect, as evidenced by prolonged response times to call lights on one of the resident units. During a resident council meeting, nine residents reported waiting between 45 minutes and 2 hours for call lights to be answered. They observed staff walking by rooms or sitting at the nurses' station while call lights were sounding. It was noted that during the survey, the number of staff answering call lights was increased compared to usual staffing levels. Observations confirmed these reports, with one instance showing a call light for a resident being on for 13 minutes while 18 staff members passed by without offering assistance. Another resident's call light was on for 42 minutes without being addressed. Additionally, a review of grievance forms revealed repeated complaints from a resident about excessive wait times for call light responses, with no improvement despite previous reports. The facility's policy requires all staff to be aware of and respond to call lights, but this was not adhered to, as confirmed by the Director of Nursing, who stated that call lights should be answered within 3 to 7 minutes depending on the urgency.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment Coding for Falls
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate completion of MDS assessments for three residents who experienced falls. Resident #34 had a witnessed fall with injuries on May 4, 2024, and an unwitnessed fall on June 15, 2024, but the quarterly MDS assessments on May 15, 2024, and August 13, 2024, incorrectly indicated no falls since admission or the prior assessment. Similarly, resident #35 had an unwitnessed fall on March 20, 2024, resulting in a hip fracture, yet the significant change MDS assessment on March 26, 2024, also inaccurately reported no falls since admission or the prior assessment. Resident #71 experienced unwitnessed falls on April 26, 2024, June 23, 2024, and August 27, 2024, with no injuries noted, but the quarterly MDS assessments on June 6, 2024, and September 5, 2024, failed to document these falls. An interview with the MDS coordinator confirmed the incorrect coding of falls on the MDS assessments. The CMS RAI 3.0 User's Manual requires accurate coding of falls and related injuries, which was not adhered to in these cases.
Inadequate Infection Control Measures in Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to establish and maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by the lack of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signage and personal protective equipment (PPE) in the rooms of residents with indwelling medical devices or wounds. Observations revealed that residents with suprapubic catheters, indwelling catheters, PICC lines, and wounds requiring care did not have the necessary EBP signage or PPE available in their rooms. This affected multiple residents, including those with neurogenic bladder, progressive neurological conditions, and stage 3 decubitus ulcers. Additionally, there was a failure to adhere to the facility's policy on EBP, which requires precautions for residents with wounds and indwelling medical devices, regardless of known infection or colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). An RN was observed performing wound care without wearing a gown, despite the presence of EBP signage and PPE in the room, although gowns were missing. Interviews with the infection preventionist and RN indicated a misunderstanding of EBP requirements, particularly regarding the removal of EBP for a resident whose PICC line had been removed.
Failure to Complete Significant Change Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a significant change assessment for a resident who experienced a notable change in condition. The resident had fallen and sustained a fractured hip, which led to a significant decline in their ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). Initially, the resident required varying levels of assistance for tasks such as toileting hygiene, dressing, transfers, and mobility. The resident was not assessed for walking due to safety concerns. Subsequent assessments showed improvement in the resident's condition, with increased independence in moving a manual wheelchair and reduced assistance needed for other ADLs. Despite these changes, a significant change assessment was not completed, as confirmed by the MDS coordinator. According to the CMS RAI 3.0 User's Manual, a significant change in status assessment is required when there are improvements or declines in two or more areas of a resident's functioning, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Limit PRN Psychotropic Medication Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that PRN psychotropic medication was limited to 14 days or that a physician provided a rationale for extended use for a resident reviewed for unnecessary medications. The resident had an order for lorazepam, an antianxiety medication, to be given every 2 hours as needed for anxiety and restlessness related to end-of-life care, with no stop date provided. A progress note indicated that the medication was for comfort care, and the benefit was deemed to outweigh the risk for the resident's life. However, the facility's policy required PRN orders for psychotropic drugs to be limited to 14 days unless a documented rationale and duration were provided by the attending physician. An interview with the DON confirmed the absence of a stop date or rationale prior to the noted date.
Failure to Protect Residents from Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse, as evidenced by an incident involving two residents. Resident #1, who had moderate cognitive impairment and various medical conditions, was found in their room with Resident #2, who also had moderate cognitive impairment and a history of inappropriate sexual behavior. Resident #2 was discovered with their pants down, exposing themselves to Resident #1. This incident was corroborated by both residents and a police investigation. The facility's records showed that Resident #2 had previously attempted to enter other residents' rooms and exhibited sexually inappropriate behavior towards female staff and residents. The incident report revealed that on two separate occasions, Resident #2 was found in Resident #1's room with their pants down. The first incident occurred on 3/15/24, and the second on 3/19/24. In both instances, Resident #2 claimed they were just talking to Resident #1. However, Resident #1 reported that Resident #2 had exposed themselves and attempted to masturbate in front of them. The facility's monitoring records showed gaps in the 15-minute location checks for Resident #2, indicating lapses in supervision. Interviews with staff and review of the facility's investigation showed that the initial allegation was not immediately reported as abuse. It was only after the IDT team reviewed the incident that it was reported as physical abuse. The facility contacted the physician, the spouse, and the police. Despite the facility's efforts to monitor Resident #2, the lapses in supervision and failure to immediately recognize and report the abuse contributed to the deficiency.
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 9 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 1 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 Casper
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Casper Mountain Rehabilitation And Care Center | 0.1 mi | — | 5 | 0 |
| Shepherd Of The Valley Rehabilitation And Wellness | 3.1 mi | — | 4 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Life Care Center Of Casper.
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.