Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · Colorado

Park Regency Loveland

Loveland, CO · ~58 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
12.2
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Park Regency Loveland runs at 322% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Park Regency Loveland: 12.2 TCR = 322% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Park Regency Loveland safety composite

Park Regency Loveland scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 17%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

F

27/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 12.22 per 100 workers

Safer than 21% of industry peers

DART rate
F 9.36 per 100 workers

Safer than 17% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

Rising injury rate

Park Regency Loveland: 9.3 → 20.6 TCR

Peak year 2024 @ 20.6 TCR · DART/TCR 0.77× in 2024

Park Regency Loveland's TCR rose 11.3 from 9.3 in 2016 to 20.6 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 0.77× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Loveland, CO ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 12.2 · 322% of ind

  • DART 9.4 DART
  • RANK #111/140
  • PHOTO Brookdale South Wind…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 46 inj
  • SIZE ~58 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Brookdale South Windsor (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Colorado employers → · Look up another →

Park Regency Loveland in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Park Regency Loveland averages 12.2 TCR (322% of the Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Park Regency Loveland TCR series: 2016=9.3 · 2017=13 · 2018=13.3 · 2019=13.1 · 2020=11.6 · 2021=15.9 · 2022=2.9 · 2023=10.3 · 2024=20.6 · BLS 3.8

Where Park Regency Loveland falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 21% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Colorado alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #111 safest of 140 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Colorado.

Park Regency Loveland (58 employees, TCR 12.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0100200300 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Park Regency Loveland
Park Regency Loveland (58 employees, TCR 12.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Park Regency Loveland has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.2. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 20.6 9.4 11 0 0
2023 10.3 6.2 5 0 0
2022 2.9 0.0 1 0 0
2021 15.9 5.3 6 0 0
2020 11.6 0.0 2 3 0
2019 13.1 8.8 5 1 0
2018 13.3 6.7 6 0 0
2017 13.0 6.5 6 0 0
2016 9.3 7.0 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · CO · Loveland

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,007 rated employers in Colorado with headcount on file · 188 employers in Loveland, CO · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Brookdale South Windsor 12.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Paramount Senior Living at Fredericksburg 12.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Missoula AL MC Care Properties, LLC 12.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR 10349 12.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Medicine Man 58 FTE
STATE-SIZE Silverline Services Windsor 58 FTE
STATE-SIZE COLORADO STRUCTURES INC 58 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hyder Construction 58 FTE
CITY-NEAR Medical Center of the Rockies 1,357 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hach Company 1,291 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hach Loveland 1,281 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6019 937 FTE
NAT-TCR Larch Farm 12.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Orlando Taft Vineland 12.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Legend of Lititz 12.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Store 1299 12.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE 3form Glass 58 FTE
NAT-SIZE Day Program 58 FTE
NAT-SIZE Raley's 935-Facilities Maintenance 58 FTE
NAT-SIZE Legendary Auto Interiors 58 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.