2599 West 90Th Avenue, Denver, CO 80260
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Nurturing Care Home Federal Heights
Pros
They are relieved that the state shut the facility down.- They believe shutting the facility down protects loved ones.
- They support taking action to remove the facility to prevent risk to residents.
Cons
The facility is not a suitable place for people to leave their family members.- There is no drug testing or background checks at the facility.
- The facility allows anyone to work there without proof of CNA license or QMAP certification.
- The facility has no control over its staff and allows staff to bring partners into the house, putting residents at risk.
- The facility does not train its staff and treats its staff poorly.
- The facility offers no benefits and pays poorly.
- The reviewer intends to report the facility to the state.
- There is a call to shut down the facility to protect loved ones.
Review
This community is not well suited for the average senior who requires reliable, professional care. It is best viewed by families who either face severely limited options or who are prepared to take on a heavy oversight burden, including active monitoring of staff conduct and ongoing regulatory steps. For most families, alternatives with verifiable licensing, documented staff qualifications, and clearer accountability will deliver far greater peace of mind and a better daily experience for a loved one.
The reviews paint a troubling picture of staffing and safety. The predominant concerns center on lax hiring practices, with no apparent drug testing or background checks and a lack of proof of CNA license or QMAP certification for those providing care. There is credible frustration about inadequate training and weak supervision, leading to what reviewers describe as an unsafe environment where staff management appears absent and relationships outside professional boundaries are allegedly tolerated. The absence of benefits and poor compensation are cited as factors that contribute to turnover and low staff morale, further eroding the quality of care residents receive.
One must acknowledge that there is at least one 4-star note among the limited feedback, but the dominant voice in the available reviews is strongly negative. In practical terms, any potential upside, such as potential cost savings or location convenience, fails to offset the core risks: unvetted staff, insufficient oversight, and a climate that reviewers say compromises resident safety and dignity. The few positives that might be inferred do not overcome the fundamental concerns about how care is delivered, supervised, and regulated.
The safety and regulatory signals here are especially alarming. The explicit assertion that “the state shut them down” is a red flag that cannot be ignored. When a facility operates with evident gaps in credential verification and staff supervision, the risk to residents’ physical safety, medication management, and overall well‑being escalates quickly. For families, this is not a place to experiment with care models or to test what might be acceptable risk; it is a setting where the likelihood of avoidable incidents is unacceptably high.
If a decision still feels necessary to explore options in this market, pursue a disciplined, investigative approach. Demand current licensing documents and verify them directly with the state; request a current staff roster with active CNA or QMAP designations and contact methods for verification; tour the facility with a checklist focused on staff-to-resident ratios, hands-on care procedures, and how medication handling is supervised. Ask hard questions about employee screening, ongoing training, incident reporting, and how management intervenes when concerns arise. Crucially, talk with residents and families about day-to-day experiences, and insist on a clear, written plan for safety oversight and response to violations.
Bottom line: for families that value safety, accountability, and consistent, qualified caregiving, this community is not a viable option. The profile suggested by the reviews, weak staffing controls, lack of credential verification, and a regulatory action, does not align with the standards expected for assisted living. The recommended path is to pivot toward other facilities with demonstrable licensing compliance, stronger staffing structures, and transparent oversight, or to consider in-home or hospital-affiliated options where care metrics and regulatory accountability are more robust. Time and resources are better invested in Iiving arrangements that offer verifiable safety nets and dependable, well-trained caregivers.
16 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Board and Care Home
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
Denver International (19 miles away)
24-hour supervision
Activities of daily living assistance
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
Assisted Living and Memory Care: Understanding Their Core Differences
Beyond the Bingo Hall: 50+ Enriching Activities for Seniors in Assisted Living
Understanding the Distinctions: Assisted Living and Memory Care Explained