Quiburi Mission Nursing & Rehabilitation
850 South Highway 80, Benson, AZ 85602 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (520) 586-2372 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Dec 2025
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.8% | 10.7% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.8% | 5.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.2% | 3.9% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.1% | 2.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.7% | 12.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.0% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.8% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.3% | 4.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.5% | 20.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.1% | 10.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 43.3% | 87.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.5% | 23.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.3% | 10.4% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.11 | 1.47 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.98 | 1.42 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
58.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 31 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 88.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 25 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 58.6%CMS range 46.0–70.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 6.5–16.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 88.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 72.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 84.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 95.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.33 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 53.3 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.63 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.88 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.89 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.22 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.80 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.04 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-01 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of facility documents and policy, the facility failed to send a notice of discharge to the State Ombudsman for one resident (#59). The deficient practice could result in the residents not being followed up for transfer or discharges concerns. Findings include:Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypertension.The Resident's Hospital Discharge Summary revealed that the Resident was discharged from the hospital to the facility for therapy services.The Discharge Planning/Discharge progress notes dated 2/15/2026, revealed that the Resident arrived at the facility accompanied by his family. Documentation indicated the resident's family member expressed concern that the assigned room did not have adequate space for the resident's belongings. Documentation further revealed the family elected to take the resident home against medical advice (AMA).Review of the electronic medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to protect the rights of one resident (#100) to be free from abuse by another resident (#200). This deficient practice could result in further instances of resident to resident abuse. Findings include:-Resident #100 (Perpetrator) was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that include Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, and depression.Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. A review of a behavior care-plan Initiated November 19, 2025 revealed that resident #100 has a behavior problem related to agitation and aggression towards other residents and staff, with a goal of the resident will have fewer episodes of behaviors, and noted interventions of anticipate and meet the resident's needs, and minimize potential for the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, review of the State Agency Database and interviews the facility failed to ensure one resident was treated with respect and dignity. The deficient practice could result in residents not feeling safe. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that include obesity, unspecified mood disorder, and acute cholecystitis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed on May 1, 2024. During the MDS assessment a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was conducted and revealed that resident #1 had a score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A report was received by the State Agency (SA) on April 15, 2024 that indicated a resident was being mistreated by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The facility conducted an initial investigation which included an interview with resident #1 on April 15, 2024. Resident #1 indicated that staff #12 had taken over an hour to assist her when the call light…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-08 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of policy, the facility failed to notifiy the Ombudsman of transfer/discharge for two residents (#23, #2). Findings included: -Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of respiratory failure unspecified with hypoxia, heart failure, and transient cerebral ischemic attack. Review of the most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) revealed a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. Facility census list revealed resident #23 was on a hospital leave on August 8, 2023 until August 14, 2023 and again on September 2, 2023 until September 9, 2023. An interview was conducted on March 6, 2024 at 2:18 P.M. with the Administrator (staff #12) and Director of Nursing (DON\staff #57). Staff #12 stated that no notification of transfer to the hospital was given to the family of resident #23 because resident was her own representative. In addition, the administrator stated they do not notify the ombudsman of any…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical records and policy, observations, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the environment remained free of accident hazards existing from unattended medications. The deficient practice of unattended medications does not align with accepted professional standards of practice and may result in undesirable medication-induced harm. Findings included: On March 6, 2024 at 9:14 AM a medication blister pack was observed unattended at the nurse's station where it was accessible to residents. The medication was Metformin Hydrochloride 500 milligram, a medication for diabetes mellitus. This observation prompted an interview with a nearby Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/Staff # 77) who stated overhearing that a nurse had removed it from the medication cart after learning it had been discontinued for a resident (# 28). Staff #77 stated it should not have been left where it was but instead be placed in the medication room and notify pharmacy to have the medication picked up. Staff # 77 counted how many tablets were left on the blister pack which were 55 total.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-08 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, clinical record review, facility documents and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that a resident (#52) was free from abuse from another resident (#53). Failure to ensure the resident was free from abuse resulted in an trochantric hip fracture. Findings include: -Resident #53 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, emotional lability, and post traumatic stress disorder. Review of this resident's care plan did not include interventions for aggressive behaviors towards other residents. A progress note dated 9/13/23 included, Resident has been restless throughout the shift, unable to get R to sit down for any length of time. Resident has been going in and out of other R rooms taking things and then giving them to other Rs. Resident becomes verbally aggressive with other R and staff when redirect is attempted . A self report filed on 10/15/23 included Residents (#53) and (9#) both reside in the special care unit. Resident (#9) pushed on the entry/exit door, causing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-08 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical records, staff interviews, and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to follow the catheter care in accordance with professional standards for one resident #18. The deficient practice could increase the risk for resident discomfort, injury and infection. Findings include: Resident #18 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including muscle wasting and atrophy, nutritional deficiencies, anxiety disorder, adult failure to thrive, age-related physical debility, protein-calorie malnutrition and palliative care. A review of the quarterly MDS (minimum data set) dated September 06, 2023 revealed a BIMS (brief interview of mental status score of 08, suggesting moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS further revealed that resident #18, currently has an in-dwelling catheter in place. A review of the physician orders revealed an order dated May 17, 2022 for a suprapubic catheter size 16 French with a 10 ml balloon, contingent on drainage. A review of the care plan dated December 20, 2023…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-08 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident #18 was assessed for the safe use of enabler bars prior to installation and informed of the risks and benefits of their use. The sample size was 16. The deficient practice could impact the residents knowledge of the risks and benefits of enabler bars and cause potential injury if the resident was not an appropriate candidate for enabler bars. Findings include: Resident #18 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including muscle wasting and atrophy, anxiety disorder, adult failure to thrive, age-related physical disability, protein-calorie malnutrition, and palliative care. A review of the quarterly MDS (minimum data set) dated September 06, 2023 revealed that the resident has a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) score of 08, suggesting moderate cognitive impairment. Section G of the MDS revealed that resident #18 is an extensive 2-person assist with transfers, and bed-mobility. Section P of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-27 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (#45) received the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) prior to the service end date. The sample size was 3. The deficient practice could result in unforeseen charges to the resident. Findings include: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included primary hypertension, unspecified fracture of left pubis, sequela, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review form presented to the facility to complete, revealed the resident Medicare Part A Skilled Services Episode start date was 01/11/22. The form contained a handwritten note that from 01/11/22 to 03/25/22, the resident was discharged to the hospital. Next to the question how was the Medicare Part A Service Termination/Discharge determined, was written 04/03/22 - 04/28/22. The form also indicated a NOMNC and SNFABN…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-27 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a Level 2 PASARR (pre-admission screening and resident review screening tool) was completed for one sampled resident (#15). The deficient practice could result in necessary specialized services not being provided for residents who need it. Findings include: Resident #15 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included morbid obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and enterocolitis. Review of the care plan dated 3/19/21 revealed the resident was receiving an antidepressant medication due to depression, and psychopharmacological medication due to schizoaffective disorder. Review of a Level I PASARR dated 4/5/2021 included diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder, Major Depression, Paranoid Disorder, and Anxiety Disorder were marked. However, further record review revealed resident #15 did not have any other PASARRs or a Level II that was submitted for further recommendation in services. Review of the physician orders…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-27 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a complete discharge summary was completed regarding one resident (#49). The sample size was 2. The deficient practice could result in an ineffective transition to post-discharge care and increases the risk factors leading to preventable readmission. Findings include: Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension. The resident was discharged [DATE]. Review of the discharge minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] included a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Review of physician orders revealed an order dated 8/11/2022 for home health to evaluate and treat for skilled nursing, safety evaluation, physical therapy (PT)/occupational therapy (OT) after hospital stay for subdural hematoma with subsequent craniotomy; and an order dated 8/12/2022 for home…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-27 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure two residents (#26 and #39) did not receive unnecessary medications. The sample size was 5. The deficient practice increases the risk for residents to receive medications unnecessarily. Findings include: -Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction due to occlusion or stenosis of small artery, hemiplegia affecting the left non-dominant side, and vascular dementia. A potential for dehydration/fluid deficit care plan revised 01/09/20 related to diuretic use had a goal to be free from symptoms of dehydration and to maintain moist mucous membranes and skin turgor. Interventions included weighing the resident on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Review of the physician orders included: -Furosemide (diuretic) 20 milligrams (mg); give 20 mg in the morning every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday related to localized edema. Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 110. Start date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-27 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — isolatedConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the Facility Assessment, staff interview, and review of policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure that the facility-wide assessment was thoroughly completed, by failing to ensure the Facility Assessment included an evaluation of the overall number of facility staff needed to ensure sufficient number of qualified staff were available to meet each resident's need. The deficient practice could result in inadequate staffing levels. Findings include: Per the facility assessment, the facility staffs based on census number and acuity of residents. Staffing assignments are adjusted based on resident acuity and needs. If it is determined that current staffing levels/assignments are no longer effective, the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) principles and model for improvement will be used to reevaluate and redesign staffing practices in order to meet acuity and needs of residents. However, further review of the assessment did not reveal an evaluation of the overall number of facility staff needed to ensure a sufficient number of qualified staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to OPCO SKILLED MANAGEMENT — 66 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 1.7 | +2.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 65 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 65; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZ HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/18/2024 |
| AMETHYST AZ TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 31% | since 11/18/2024 |
| INDIGO AZ TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 61% | since 11/18/2024 |
| FIRST SWEETZER HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| HATTERAS INVESTMENTS, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| SASEM INVESTMENTS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| GARETZ, DAVID | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| KAPLAN, ESTHER | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| KAPLAN, MOSHA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| PETERSON, DANIELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| VANDIVORT, MONICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| GURWITZ, SOLOMON | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/22/2025 |
| MINDLE, ADAM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/22/2025 |
| STERNSHEIN, JENNIFER | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/21/2025 |
| UNGER, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/22/2025 |
| ZIMMERMAN, CAROLINE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/21/2025 |
| 850 S STATE HWY 80AZ LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| AZ REALTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/06/2025 |
| CONTINUUM REHAB GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| HANSEN HUNTER LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| OPCO AZ SKILLED MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| OPCO CA SKILLED MGMT INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| OPCO TEXAS SKILLED MGMT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| ORCHID AZ TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/06/2025 |
| PEACOCK AZ TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/06/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
15 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 88% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AZ
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Arizona Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 035214. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-01, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.