Sante Of Mesa
5358 East Baseline Road, Mesa, AZ 85206 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 70 certified beds · (480) 699-9624 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- the CMS record shows $3,146 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-05)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.3% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.7% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 37.0% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.9% | 4.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.8% | 87.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.9% | 23.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.6% | 10.4% | 12.0% | worse |
* 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.
69.2% 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 591 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.7% 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 288 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 1.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% 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
| 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 | 69.2%CMS range 65.3–72.1 | 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 | 11.5%CMS range 9.7–13.1 | 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 | 59.7% | 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 | 47.9% | 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 | 56.2% | 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 | 94.3% | 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 | 99.7% | 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 | 97.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.2% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 4.8–9.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 70 beds and averages 66.8 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 5.03 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.14 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.40 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 4.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.35 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.20 to 0.98 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-04 · 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 staff interviews, review of records and review of policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that services met professional standards of quality by failing to administer medications according to physician ordered parameters for one of five sampled residents (#4). The deficient practice could result in residents to receiving medications that did not meet the provider parameters. Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included displaced trimalleolar fracture of right lower leg, contusion of lower back and pelvis, anxiety disorder, type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease, morbid obesity, and major depressive disorder.A care plan initiated on July 12, 2025 revealed the following areas of focus:Hypertension related to CHF (congestive heart failure) and kidney disease with interventions, initiated July 12, 2025, that included to give anti-hypertensive medications as ordered.Potential for actual alteration in comfort/pain related to recent hospitalization, initiated on July 12,…
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 · D2025-07-02 · tag F0563 — failed to protect the right to visitors — isolatedHonor the resident's right to receive visitors of his or her choosing, at the time of his or her choosing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility failed to ensure that one resident (# 634) was properly informed by not implementing a password protocol for visitation.Based on clinical record review, interviews, and facility documentation and facility documentation and policy, the facility failed to ensure that the facility implemented a password protocol to protect one resident (# 634) from harm. The sample size was four residents. This deficient practice could result in residents being further victimized. Findings include:Resident # 634 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, respiratory failure with hypoxia, atrial fibrillation, long term use of anticoagulants, anxiety, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, and muscle weakness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 08, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The clinical record banner alert, retrieved July 2, 2025, with special instructions that the son…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-06 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide 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, interview, review of policies and procedures, the facility failed to notify the ombudsman of transfer or discharge. The deficit practice would result in residents not being able to inform the ombudsman being unaware for any transfer or discharge. Resident # 70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include adult failure to thrive, HTN, BPH, Anemia. Resident # 70 was discharged [DATE]. Resident # 70 needs supervision or touching assistance with: eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. Resident # 70 needs substantial/maximal assistance with: upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/taking on foot wear, roll left and right, sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfer. The care plan revealed Resident #70 was monitored for any change of conditions. If any change were to occur it would be reported to their provider. Resident # 70 is at risk for altered fluid balance r/t Poor intake, feeding tube. Resident # 70 has oral thrush and antifungal. Progress…
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 · D2024-09-06 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — isolatedHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the reviewing of staff list, census, record review and interview facility failed to ensure that a Registered Nurse (RN) severed 8 consecutive hours in the day.The deficit practice would result resident care not being property given in need of a registered nurse. Reviews of daily staff revealed that an RN was not present during the 8 hours in the day for 8 different dates. On May 19, 2024 the Census was 58 no RN coverage for day and night. On July 01, 2024 Census was 68 no RN coverage for the day for 8 hours. At the August 05, 2024 census there was 68 no RN coverage for the day for 8 hours. On August 06,2024 census was 66 for the day for 8 hours, August 12, 2024 the census was 69 and no RN coverage for 8 hours of the day. August 19,2024 census 67 no RN coverage for the day for 8 hours. August 27, 2024 census 64 no RN coverage for the day for 8 hours. September 01, 2024 census 59 no RN coverage for 8 of the day. Upon further review of the daily staffing list provided to the surveyor, Director of Nursing or Assistant of Director of Nursing are not listed on the daily staffing…
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 · D2024-09-06 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure pain medications were administered in accordance with the physician's orders for one resident (#15). The deficient practice could result in the resident receiving unnecessary medication and being overmedicated. Findings include: Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of a fracture of shaft of right fibula, fracture of shaft of right tibia, and acquired absence of left hip joint. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated June 20, 2024 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident is cognitively intact. A physician's order dated May 9, 2024 indicated Oxycodone HCI (narcotic analgesic) Oral Tablet 5 milligrams (mg) was to be given by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain between 6-10 on a 0-10 pain scale. A review of the July and August medication administration record (MAR)…
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 · D2024-04-17 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis 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 observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and facility documentation, policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure dialysis assessments were completed and transportation to dialysis appointments was arranged for one of three sampled residents (#4). The deficient practice could result in the resident missing dialysis treatment and developing renal complications. Findings include: The facility's contract with the Dialysis Facility, signed and dated 10/18/2023, it included that the facility shall be responsible for arranging transportation of residents to and from Dialysis Facility, including all transportation costs and expenses. Long term care facility shall be responsible for ensuring that residents are (i) medically stable to undergo such transportation, (ii) medically suitable to receive treatment at Dialysis Facility, and (iii) timely transported to and from Dialysis Facility. Resident (#4) was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney…
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 · D2024-01-31 · 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, facility documentation, the State database, staff interviews, and policies review, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse for one resident (#45) was reported to the State within the required time frame. The deficient practice could result in further incidents of abuse not being reported as required. Findings include: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease and pneumonia. According to the Minimum Data Set assessment, he scored 13 on his Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) which indicated cognitive intactness. He had orders for 300 milligrams (mg) of Gabapentin one time a day for neuropathy dated 10/17/23. His hospital discharge paperwork reflected this same order for 300mg of Gabapentin once a day. He had a new order for Gabapentin dated 11/9/23 for 800 mg three time a day for neuropathy. In a review of the grievance log for November 2023, the facility received a Comment and Concern Form from…
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 · E2022-11-10 · tag F0554 — patternAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY -Resident #264 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute pyelonephritis, urinary tract infection, chronic kidney disease, paraplegia, depression, and hypertension. Active physician orders for medications included Gabapentin, cefdinir (antibiotic), Pantoprazole (antacid), Cymbalta (antidepressant), fluconazole (antifungal), midodrine anti-hypotension), oxycodone (narcotic), Seroquel (antipsychotic), and Lovenox (anticoagulant). During an interview conducted with resident #264 on 11/07/22 at 11:20 AM, a cup full of medications was observed on the table. Resident #264 said staff knew her really well and knew that she was going to take the pills so they were okay to leave them with her. She picked up the cup and self-administered a pill. Immediately following the observation, an interview was conducted with an LPN (staff #107) who was standing outside the room. She stated that pills cannot be left with a resident and should never be taken outside of the nurse ' s view. The LPN stated…
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 F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#225) and/or their representatives were informed in advance of the risks and benefits of proposed treatment with psychotropic medications. The sample size was 7. The deficient practice could result in residents receiving high risk medications without education, their knowledge, or consent. Findings include: Resident #225 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. The baseline care plan dated October 26, 2022 revealed the resident was admitted with impaired cognitive function or impaired thought processes related to confusion, BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 00 and cognitive communication deficit. The baseline care plan included that the resident used antipsychotic medication. Interventions stated to administer…
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 F0623 — isolatedProvide 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 policy and procedures, the facility failed to notify the ombudsman in writing regarding one resident's (56) discharge. The sample size was 2. The deficient practice could result in the ombudsman not being notified of resident discharges. Findings include: Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, hypertension, and thrombotic microangiopathy. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] included a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of a progress note dated August 26, 2022 revealed the resident received medications, treatments, discharge instructions, and/or written prescriptions. Review of the discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] stated that the resident was discharged to the community on August 26, 2022. An interview was conducted on November 10, 2022 at 11:29 a.m. with the Social Services Coordinator (staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-10 · 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 policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to physician ordered parameters for one resident (#223). The sample size was 5. The deficient practice could result in residents receiving medications that may not be necessary. Findings include: Resident #223 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypotension, essential (primary) hypertension, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and heart failure. Review of the clinical record revealed an order for Midodrine HCL 5 mg (milligrams) 1 tablet via PEG-tube (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube) three times a day for hypertension. HOLD if SBP (systolic blood pressure) > 120, HR (Heart Rate) > 60 dated October 21, 2022. Review of the care plan initiated on November 2, 2022 revealed the resident had hypertension. The interventions stated to give hypertensive medications as ordered, and to monitor for side effects such as orthostatic…
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 F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food items in the kitchen dry storage were sealed, dated or not expired. The deficient practice could result in a potential for food borne illness. Findings include: An initial observation of the kitchen refrigerator was conducted with the Dietary Manager (staff #139) on 11/09/22 at 12:40 PM. A bottle of pickles, a bag containing nuts and potato chips were observed unlabeled and undated. In addition, a container of dried milk and peanut butter was found to be expired (10/22/22 and 10/21/22). An interview was conducted with the culinary services director (staff #139) on 11/09/22 at 12:40 PM. Staff #139 stated that it is his expectation that the food in the freezer, refrigerator and dry goods be labeled, marked and dated. He stated that he does check the dry goods area but did not look well enough to notice the items. He stated they were overlooked. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #171) on 11/09/22 at 1:51 PM. The DON stated that it is her expectation that food in 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.
“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
$3,146 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $3,146 — penalty dated 2023-09-05
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SANTE — 5 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 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.4★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LEACH FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 2/25/24 | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/06/2022 |
| MUNCH TOOKE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 49% | since 05/01/2011 |
| SP MESA, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 49% | since 05/01/2011 |
| RDW ARIZONA LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 07/12/2011 |
| SP RE DEVELOPMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 39% | since 06/01/2011 |
| STERLING & JACQUELINE HOLDINGS,LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 01/01/2022 |
| HANSEN, CHARLES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 13% | since 05/01/2011 |
| MUNCH, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2011 |
| SCHAEFER, JACOB | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 6% | since 05/01/2011 |
| SANTE PARTNERS II LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| FICEK, GREGORY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| KENNEDY, PATRICIA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| AGUILAR, SALVADOR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/16/2024 |
| BEASLEY, DONNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| CORDOVA, CHRISTINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2017 |
| EVANGELISTA, MARIFIDES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/21/2022 |
| GUDINO, LORI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| HOUSLEY CASTANEDA, JONIQUE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2023 |
| IBIS, PATTI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/19/2012 |
| SHABA, WISAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/14/2024 |
| SIMMONS, MAY JOYAL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2013 |
| STRICKLAND, DANIEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2022 |
| THINNES, DANIEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/10/2015 |
| VANN, FELICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2021 |
| VOGT, ANDREA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/11/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 47 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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.
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 035280. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-04, 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.