Center At Arrowhead, LLC
7201 W Camino San Xavier Ave, Glendale, AZ 85308 · For profit - Corporation · 96 certified beds · (623) 773-6100 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (72%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
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 |
| 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 improved from 4 to 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.3% | 87.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.1% | 23.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.2% | 10.4% | 12.0% | better |
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.
62.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 516 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.8% 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 227 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 0.93 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 96% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 34% 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 | 62.3%CMS range 57.8–66.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.3%CMS range 9.4–13.2 | 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 | 60.8% | 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 | 56.4% | 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 | 52.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 98.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 94.9% | 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 | 1.6% | 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 | 0.3% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 4.7–9.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 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 96 beds and averages 63.1 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 33 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 4.35 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 4.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.48 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.51 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 72% is well above the national median of 45%.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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 · E2025-05-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 observation, staff interviews and facility policy, the facility failed to maintain infection prevention and control when delivering meal trays, providing foley catheter care for one of one sampled resident's (#9), and failing to consistently implement tracking and trending of their infection prevent and control program. The deficient practice could result in transmission of infection within the facility. -Regarding delivering of meal trays: Observations were conducted on April 30, 2025 of a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/staff #200) delivering in-room lunch meal trays to four residents on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). The following was observed: -The CNA entered the first room, moved items on the bedside table and placed a meal tray on a bedside table, and exited the room without sanitizing her hands. -The staff member picked up a meal tray from the dietary cart and entered a second room without sanitizing her hands prior to entering the room. The staff member placed the meal tray on the bedside…
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 · E2025-05-02 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, policy review and Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to consistently implement tracking and trending of their antibiotic stewardship program. The facility census was 79 residents. This deficient practice could result in improper antibiotic use and adverse outcomes to residents. Findings include: On May 1, 2025 at 11:35 AM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON/staff #54) and the Regional Clinical Director (RCD/staff #205). The ADON and the RCD explained that the ADON was in the process of completing her training as the Infection Preventionist (IP). It was further explained that the previous IP (staff #69) was assisting the ADON with IP tasks approximately three to four hours per week. During the interview on May 1, 2025, the Infection Control Logs for January 2025 through April 2025 were reviewed with the RCD and the ADON. Resident names, types of infections and antibiotics used were listed on the log. However, there was no evidence of trending the information found on the logs.…
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 before2025-05-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, interviews, and facility documentation and policy, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (# 207) was administered medications in accordance with physician's orders. This deficient practice can result in diminished quality of life, and suboptimal clinical outcomes. Findings include: Resident #207 was admitted to the facility August 12, 2024 for a 5-day respite for hospice care with diagnoses that included Cerebrovascular disease, sequelae of cerebral infarction, hypertension, anxiety disorder, atrial fibrillation & depression. A hospice order summary dated August 12, 2024 revealed that the resident was prescribed Lactaid, Glucerna and sliding scale insulin instruction. Review of the August 2024 Medication Administration Record and the Treatment Administration Record revealed insulin was not administered and that fasting or random blood sugars were not completed during the 5-day respite period, that the resident was in the facility. A progress note dated August 12, 2024, indicated that medications to include medication administration times…
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 · D2025-05-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left at the bedside for one of 16 sampled residents (#404). The deficient practice could result in medications not being administered correctly, or medications not taken as ordered by the provider. Findings include: Resident #404 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracture of fourth lumbar vertebra and subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing. During an initial observation conducted on April 29, 2025 at 09:30 AM, of Resident #404's room, a tube of barrier cream and anti-fungal powder were observed on the resident's bedside table unattended. A second observation conducted on April 29, 2025 at 10:45 AM., revealed a tube of barrier cream and anti-fungal powder on the bedside table unattended. Review of physician orders revealed: barrier cream to coccyx and buttock area every shift and PRN dated February 22, 2025. Further review of 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 · D2025-05-02 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the daily nurse staffing information was complete and accurate for actual hours worked for licensed and unlicensed direct care nursing staff. The deficient practice could result in residents, representatives, and visitors not being informed of accurate and current staffing information in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's daily nurse staffing forms for the dates of February 14, 2025 through February 18, 2025 and April 25, 2025 through April 27, 2025 revealed no evidence of actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff. During an observation conducted on April 29, 2025 at 9:07 AM, the daily nurse staff posting form was displayed at the front information desk and form did not include the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff. An interview was conducted with the Staffing Coordinator (staff # 73) on May 1, 2025 at 1:25 PM who stated that she is responsible for ensuring the daily nurse staffing information is accurate and posted. She stated that she had not been…
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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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, staff and resident interviews, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse for one resident (#6) was reported to the State Agency. The deficient practice places the resident at risk for continued abuse. Findings include: Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile, sepsis, depression and low back pain. A review of the Resident #6 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, which indicated moderately impaired. In addition, Resident #6 mostly required assistance with everyday activities. A review of the care plan initiated on January 24, 2024 revealed a need assistance with transfers and toileting related to impaired mobility secondary to weakness and debility. The interventions included check frequently and assist with toileting as needed, keep call…
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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#55) receive trimming of toe nails. The deficient practice could result in resident discomfort with pain and infection. Findings include: Resident # 55 was admitted to facility on January 9, 2024 with diagnosis included unspecified fracture of upper end of left humerus, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, subsequent encounter, sepsis, unspecified organism, contusion of left elbow, subsequent encounter, essential (primary) hypertension, alcohol abuse, uncomplicated, gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, muscle weakness (generalized), difficulty in walking, not elsewhere classified. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating that the resident is cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated that the resident was dependent on toileting and lower body…
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 before2023-09-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 closed record review, observation of current practice, staff interviews, and facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure wound assessment was completed for one of 3 sampled residents (#1). The deficient practice could result in resident not receiving appropriate treatment and developing or worsening or wound. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of fractured left femur, essential hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus type II, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking. The admission progress notes of July 7, 2023 revealed the resident arrived at the facility and had an immobilizer. The nursing comprehensive admission data collection tool dated July 7, 2023 revealed the resident had small surgical site pin hole in the left knee, 36 staples, minimal upper extremity bruising, bruising to the left thigh, and four sites of bruising on the left foot. Per the documentation Braden Scale score was 15, indicating the resident…
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 · D2022-11-10 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, interviews, and policy, the facility failed to ensure provision of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care was provided to one resident (#112). The sample size was four residents. The deficient practice could result resident needs being unmet. Findings include: Resident #112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pressure ulcer, Alzheimer's disease, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking. Review of a nursing note dated September 8, 2021 included an admitting diagnosis of weakness and that the resident needed substantial/maximal assistance with toileting hygiene. The resident's ADL care plan dated September 7, 2021 revealed an actual/potential decline in ability to perform ADLs. Interventions included to provide assistance as needed with grooming, bathing, and personal hygiene and to assist with ADLs as needed. Review of the 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident scored 9 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status…
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 before2022-11-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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, interviews, and policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#113) was provided wound care and treatment per physician's orders. The sample size was two residents. The deficient practice could result in delayed wound healing. Findings include: Resident #113 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis left ankle and foot, status post-surgical amputation, gangrene, peripheral vascular disease, and type two diabetes mellitus. Review of a nursing note dated July 18, 2021 included that the resident had a left great toe amputation. The resident's skin care plan, dated July 18, 2021, revealed the resident had a surgical wound related to a left toe amputation. The interventions included dressing changes per physician's orders and to monitor the incision daily and as needed. A wound care consultation dated July 20, 2021 included that the resident had a left great toe amputation with a surgical incision. The wound had wet eschar along 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 · D2022-11-10 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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, interviews, and policies, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#113) was provided pressure ulcer care and assessment per physician's orders. The sample size was two residents. The deficient practice could result in delayed wound healing. Findings include: Resident #113 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis of the left ankle and foot, status post-surgical amputation, gangrene, peripheral vascular disease, and type two diabetes mellitus. The resident's skin care plan, dated July 18, 2021, revealed a potential for skin breakdown due to decreased mobility. The interventions included conducting a Braden scale every week, skin evaluation as ordered, and dressing changes/treatments per physician's orders. Review of a wound care evaluation dated July 20, 2021 included the resident was admitted with an unstageable left heel pressure ulcer which measured 0.8 centimeters (cm) long by 0.9 cm wide. The wound bed was noted to contain eschar.…
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 · D2022-11-10 · 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 record review, review of hospital records, interviews, and policies, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#162) received appropriate catheter care and services. The sample size was one resident. The deficient practice could increase the risk for catheter-related injuries. Findings include: Resident #162 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). A urinary catheter care plan dated December 12, 2019 related to BPH with obstruction had a goal for no complications related to the catheter. An intervention included catheter care as ordered by the physician and as needed. A Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress note dated December 30, 2019 at 12:56 p.m. included that the resident's urinary catheter was patent and draining clear, light yellow urine. The note indicated that bladder training would be started that day to remove the catheter. A physician's order dated December 30,…
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 · D2022-11-10 · tag F0885 — failed to notify residents/families about COVID-19 — isolatedReport COVID19 data to residents and families.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility documentation, interviews, and policy, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representatives/family were notified of a confirmed case of COVID-19 within the required timeframe. The facility census was 46 residents. The deficient practice could result in residents and/or their representatives being unaware of the COVID-19 status in the facility. Findings include: Review of facility documentation revealed that one resident had tested positive for COVID-19 on November 5, 2022. Her symptoms included fatigue and a cough. The resident was put on quarantine on the same date. An interview was conducted with the representative of resident #29 on November 7, 2022 at 12:13 p.m. She stated that she have not been notified that any residents in the facility have COVID-19. In an interview with a family member of resident #165 on November 7, 2022 at 2:45 p.m., she said that the resident had received a phone call that morning to notify him that there was an active COVID-19 case in the building. During an interview with the representative of resident #21 on November…
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 VERITAS MANAGEMENT GROUP — 13 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALDRIDGE, PATRICIA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 02/02/2015 |
| DUNLAP, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/02/2015 |
| GAYLOR, PATRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/02/2015 |
| OTT, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/02/2015 |
| SENKOFF, ALEXANDER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/02/2015 |
| WILLIAMS, CANDYCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/02/2015 |
| VERITAS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/02/2015 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Arizona Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 035289. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-02, 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.