No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Sun Health La Loma Care Center

14260 South Denny Boulevard, Litchfield Park, AZ 85340 · Non profit - Corporation · 43 certified beds · (623) 537-7400 Medicare only — no Medicaid

Call the home — (623) 537-7400 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation$8,278 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (21% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-28)
  • 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)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
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

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
14044 W Camelback Rd · (623) 535-4876 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
4890 N Litchfield Rd · (800) 746-7287 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
13730 W Camelback Rd · (623) 334-7735 · Call to confirm hours
Park
In The Park Litchfield Park · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
4870 N Litchfield Rd · (623) 935-6336

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 2 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.

Overall rating2★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased11.5%10.7%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.1%5.3%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.8%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%1.2%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%3.9%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.3%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.0%2.1%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.2%21.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers0.0%4.4%4.7%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control22.3%20.6%21.2%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine92.7%87.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.0%23.7%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit8.7%10.4%12.0%better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

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.

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.

59.5% 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 286 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

59.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
57.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.85U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.32hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.45hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 57.0% 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 165 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 0.85 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 30% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF59.5%CMS range 54.8–64.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.9%CMS range 8.2–14.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge57.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge56.4%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge40.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified99.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge96.9%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.4%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization5.7%CMS range 3.4–8.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.801.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.95
RN hours/ resident / day
1.50
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.75
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.20
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.60
RN hoursweekends
20.8%
Total nursing turnover
100.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 43 beds and averages 38.5 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 4 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 5.20 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.95 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.75 is at or above 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 4.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.41 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.09 to 0.60 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 21% is below 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

8
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-03-28)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2024-02-23)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2025-10-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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, staff and caregiver interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure advance directives was followed for one resident (#10).Findings include:Resident #10 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of muscle weakness, bacteremia, methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), acute abscess of female pelvis, acute delirium, atrial-fibrillation, unspecified dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety.The facesheet of the clinical record revealed no code status documented.The hospital history and physical dated [DATE] revealed that the resident had a code status of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and Do Not Intubate (DNI).An undated admission report sheet included that the resident had a code status of DNR.An admission progress note dated [DATE] revealed that resident #10 was alert and oriented with some confusion. The advance medical directive statement signed by the POA (power of attorney) and dated [DATE] included that the resident would receive…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 observations, documentation, staff interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (#1) did not elope. The sample was 3. The deficient practice could result in resident harm.Findings include:Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included wedge compression fracture of third lumbar vertebra, cerebral amyloid angiopathy and dementia.The admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of 03. Which indicates that the resident has severe cognition impairment.The elopement risk assessment was completed on admission with a date of June 3, 2025 and revealed that Resident #1 was a low risk with a score of 0.0.A care plan was initiated on June 17, 2025 with a focus for Resident #1 being at risk for elopement. Interventions included to engage resident in purposeful activity, provide clear, simple instructions, provide reorientation to surroundings/environment, schedule time for regular…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-03-28 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespread
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that prepared food were distributed to residents at a safe and appetizing temperature. The deficient practice could result in the potential of bacterial growth in susceptible conditions. Findings include: On March 26, 2025 at 11:03AM, the tray line was observed, and the initial temperatures of the meat was at 180°F, vegetables were tempted at 169°F, starch tempted at 175°F, and a sandwich to which Staff #103 (Interim Dietary Manager) stated is a cheese steak sandwich tempted at 172°F. No cold components were included in the tray line for this observation due to no cold components on the menu for that day. During this tray line, meal service and tray distribution to all units were observed. On March 26, 2025 at 12:23PM a test tray was provided by Staff #103, the final temperatures of the food were obtained by Staff #103, which revealed meat was tempted at 152°F, vegetables were tempted at 140°F, starch tempted at 157°F, and a cheese steak sandwich tempted at 123°F. An interview on March 27, 2025…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-03-28 · tag F0655 — pattern
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a baseline care plan regarding urostomy care/treatment was developed for two of two sampled residents (#145, and #146). The deficient practice could result in goals and interventions not being evaluated, and available to the staff providing the care and treatment. Findings include: -Regarding Resident #145: Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, and artificial openings of urinary tract. Physician orders dated March 15, 2025, revealed an order for urostomy care two times a day. A weekly skin assessment dated [DATE], revealed the presence of a urostomy on the resident's left abdomen. A clinical admission progress note dated March 15, 2025, revealed the presence of an intact urostomy, and urostomy stoma. The March 2025 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed evidence that urostomy treatments had been provided as…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-03-28 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — pattern
    Ensure 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, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that anti-hypertensives were administered within parameters for two residents (Residents #14 and #27); and that, pain management medication were administered within parameters for one resident (Resident #27). The deficient practice could result in further instances of inaccurate pain management with opioid medication; and, inaccurate administration of blood pressure medication. Findings include: -Resident #14 was initially admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included parkinsonism, unspecified; unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety; unspecified atrial fibrillation; and essential (primary) hypertension. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident did not have a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) completed and a staff assessment of the resident's mental…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-28 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 1 of 12 sampled residents (#37) accurately reflected their status regarding falls. The deficient practice could result in suboptimal care planning and effect the quality of care provided. Findings include: Resident #37 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, dementia, repeated falls, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait/mobility, malignant neoplasm of prostate and skin. An admission summary progress note dated March 6, 2025, revealed that the resident's spouse stated that he was admitted due to frequent falls. A fall risk evaluation progress note dated March 6, 2025, revealed a history of three or more falls within the past three months, and a fall risk of 26, which indicated a moderate fall risk. A clinical admission progress note dated March 6, 2025, revealed safety concerns related to falls. A Care…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-28 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide 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 observations, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to provide indwelling (Foley) catheter care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of one sampled resident (#146). This deficient practice could lead to indwelling foley catheter complications. Findings include: Resident #146 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included peritoneal abscess, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, colostomy and encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system. An initial observation was conducted on March 25, 2025 at 9:43 AM of Resident #146, who was lying in her bed with a catheter bag hanging on the bed frame. The resident stated she had a Foley catheter. A Nursing Skilled Evaluation Progress Note, dated March 25, 2025 indicated that the resident had a Foley catheter due to urinary retention. A provider order was written on March 21, 2025, for Foley catheter care to be conducted on every shift,…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-28 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolated
    Provide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    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, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to provide ileostomy care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of two sampled residents (#146). This deficient practice could lead to ileostomy skin complications. Findings include: Resident #146 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included peritoneal abscess, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, colostomy and encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system. A skilled nursing note dated March 21, 2025, revealed the resident had an ileostomy, rather than a colostomy. A provider order was written on March 21, 2025, for ileostomy care to be conducted every seven days and PRN (as needed): cleanse gently the skin and stoma with a wet washcloth or wipe, pat dry, apply wafer and pouch. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed no evidence that ileostomy care had been performed on March 24, 2025, on the day shift. A…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to that ensure that policies regarding storing opened food and leftovers were followed. The deficient practice could result in the potential of bacterial growth in susceptible conditions. Findings include: On March 25, 2025 at 8:20AM, an observation was conducted of the facility's kitchen with the Interim Director of Dining Services (Staff #102) providing guidance during this initial observation. At the end of the initial observation of the kitchen and dining services, an observation of the nourishment refrigerator revealed food items including canned beverages and a wrapped item within the freezer, with no labeled dates. An interview was conducted with Staff #102 during the observation above, where Staff #102 reported that they were unsure on whether or not closed items, such as canned beverages and yogurts, require a written date on the item itself due to the best by date on each individual item, however, stated that any leftovers or any items that are opened and then put back into the refrigerators,…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 observations, interviews and policy, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices were implemented to prevent development and transmission of communicable disease/infection for two of two sampled residents related to urostomy care for one resident (#145), and foley catheter care for one resident (#146). The deficient practice could result in transmission of infection. Findings Include: -Regarding Resident #145, PPE Donning/Doffing and hand hygiene: Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, and artificial openings of the urinary tract. Physician orders dated March 15, 2025, revealed an order for urostomy care two times a day. Further review of the clinical record revealed that a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment had been conducted on March 19, 2025 with a score of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. An observation of Resident #145's urostomy care was conducted on…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-23 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide 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 clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the notice of two out of two discharges for one resident (# 47) to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The failure may result in residents not having the advocacy and support from the State Long-Term Ombudsman during the discharge process. Findings include: Resident # 47 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident # 47 was readmitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis of unspecified fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, unspecified atrial fibrillation, cerebral infarction, and Alzheimer's disease, and then discharged home with hospice December 29, 2023. The Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) on December 19, 2023, revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1. Indicating that the resident had severe cognitive impairment. A review of clinical records revealed no evidence of sent notice of discharge to a representative…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-10-28

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
CAVANAUGH-MARSH, MARYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2023
GILSTRAP, GREGIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2023
HASKELL, CORNELIUSIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2022
HOFFMAN, SINTRAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/17/2025
KOVALA, IRENEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2017
LA RUE, JOSEPHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2018
LANCASTER, LEWISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/21/2017
MARRER, GARYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2022
ORCUTT, HERMANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2012
ORLOPP, SHARONIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2024
REIFSTECK, MARKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/01/2023
RIVERA, REYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2024
SOLOMON, GERALDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2017
RUNGE, AMYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
THOMPSON, KIMBERLEYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/27/2023
FORVIS MAZARS LLPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/11/2021
LA LOMA SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/01/2018
SALTMARSHOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
SUN HEALTH SENIOR LIVING LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/14/2025
SUN HEALTH SERVICESOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/31/2010
HUNTER, DARRYLLIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/24/2024
JUDE, REBECCAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/15/2025
LAKSHMIPATHY, ARUNIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

5 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.

$6.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-42.0%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$630K
Related-party expense7% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 0%Medicare 18%Other / private 82%

This home reported $630K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 2024. 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

$502per resident / day
operating cost
$15,273per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$354per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Arizona
$8,365/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$11,437/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,250/mo
Assisted living

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 035264. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-28, 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.

What to do next