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

Az - Rio Vista Post Acute And Rehabilitation

10323 West Olive Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85345 · For profit - Corporation · 150 certified beds · (623) 875-0100 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (623) 875-0100 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
MY DR NOW0.5 mi
10613 W Olive Ave · (480) 677-8282 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
10727 W Olive Ave · (623) 815-8074 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Safeway0.5 mi
10641 W Olive Ave · (623) 583-7227 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Place of worship

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 improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
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 increased6.9%10.7%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.7%5.3%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.8%0.8%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.7%1.2%2.0%worse
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 injury4.0%2.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened17.8%12.8%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication23.2%21.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.8%94.6%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.2%4.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control30.1%20.6%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table1.8%10.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.7%87.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.0%23.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit4.3%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.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

59.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 109 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

59.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
78.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.61U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.29hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.25hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 78.7% 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 75 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 0.61 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 SNF59.9%CMS range 50.4–69.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.8%CMS range 6.5–15.010.7%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 discharge78.7%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 discharge69.3%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 discharge54.7%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 identified100.0%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 setting95.8%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 discharge84.8%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 worsened0.8%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 hospitalization6.1%CMS range 3.2–9.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.961.02Oct 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

0.62
RN hours/ resident / day
1.03
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.82
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.48
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.40
RN hoursweekends
48.9%
Total nursing turnover
40.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 150 beds and averages 139.6 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.479 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.82 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.65 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-04-04)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2023-05-26)

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.

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.

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

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2022-03-04 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided to prevent the development of pressure ulcer for one resident (#262) and failed to ensure the pressure ulcer was thoroughly assessed consistently. The deficient practice could result in residents developing pressure ulcers and has the potential for inadequate or inaccurate or inappropriate treatment and subsequent deterioration of pressure ulcer. Findings include: Resident #262 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified low back pain, sciatica and generalized muscle weakness. The skin integrity care plan dated December 6, 2021 revealed the resident having potential impairment for skin integrity related to incontinence, limited mobility, sciatica and severe pain. Interventions included weekly skin assessment; following facility protocols for treatment of injury; and, notifying the nurse immediately of any new areas of skin breakdown: redness, blisters, bruises or…

    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 · E2025-05-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one (#4) of three sampled residents was provided respiratory care consistent with professional standards and highest practicability of care. The deficient practice could result in respiratory complications. Findings include: Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan revealed no evidence of oxygen use or needs and no evidence of the resident having a focus related to respiratory issues. Review of the progress notes revealed Physician and nurse practitioner (NP)/physician asssistant (PA) progress notes from November 2, 2024 to November 27, 2022 which recommended supplemental oxygen use to keep…

    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 · D2025-05-07 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    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, resident and staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one (#5) of three sampled residents' choices regarding personal hygiene care were considered and honored in regard to shower preferences. The deficient practice could result in residents not having their choice in personal preferences that are significant to them. Findings include: Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, and end stage renal disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Review of the care plan revealed a problem focus initiated on September 10, 2024, which revealed that the resident could be resistive to care, such as refusing showers. Interventions in place included allowing the resident to make decision about treatment regime to provide a sense of control,…

    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
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-07 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one (#2) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers was provided care and services to prevent and safely treat pressure ulcers. The deficient practice could result in the development and worsening of pressure ulcers. Findings include: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included (cystitis) inflammation of the bladder, Type two diabetes mellitus, and generalized muscle weakness. Review of the nursing progress note dated April 8, 2025 revealed that on admission, the resident was noted to have a wound to the right heel, which had a clean dressing in place. There was no evidence of other wounds noted at this time. Review of the Initial admission Record revealed that on April 9, 2025, the resident was observed to have a right heel wound. There was no evidence of any other wounds or skin impairments at that time. Review of Resident #2's care plan revealed 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 · E2025-04-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    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 observation, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medication were not left unsecured at bedside for two sample residents (#105 & #67). The deficientpractice of unattended medications does not align with accepted professional standards of practice and may result in undesirable medication-induced harm. Findings include: -Resident #105 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of alcoholic cirrhosis of liver, depression, opioid abuse, and anxiety disorder. Review of resident #105 medical records revealed a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed December 08, 2024 when admitted on to hospice. He had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIM) score of 15/15 which means he has no cognitive impairment. Review of medical records did not reveal an assessment to allow self-administration nor to allow storage of medications or treatment at bedside. On April 01, 2025 at 10:19 AM, during initial observation, a beige color asthma mist inhaler unit was observed 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0660 — isolated
    Plan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
    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, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line was discontinued when not required prior to, or at time of, discharge for one of three Residents (#1). The deficient practice could result in residents utilizing the PICC line inappropriately or getting infection if not prope. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included sepsis, psychoactive substance abuse, depression, and anxiety. An order was initiated on January 23, 2025 to flush the PICC line right upper extremity (RUE) before and after use of intravenous IV medications. An order was initiated on January 23, 2025 to do PICC line care and dressing changes. An order initiated on January 24, 2025 revealed that Resident #1 ' s opioid risk was high risk. An order initiated on January 24, 2025 revealed that upon discharge, the facility should have removed the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)…

    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 · D2023-05-26 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure 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 -Resident #66 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting right dominant side, aphasia, epilepsy unspecified, type 2 diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, unspecified dementia and anxiety disorder. The care plan initiated on October 21, 2021 included that resident was on anticoagulant therapy related to atrial fibrillation. Interventions included to take/give medication at the same time each day. The current comprehensive care plan included an intervention to administer medications as ordered and to monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Review of the physician orders revealed the following morning medications: -Aspirin (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory) 81 mg (milligrams) give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for DVT (deep vein thrombosis) prophylaxis; -Tramadol (narcotic analgesic) 50 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain 1-10; -Acetaminophen (analgesic) 325 mg give 2 tablets by mouth every 6 hours as needed for…

    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 · D2023-05-26 · 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, resident and staff interviews, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that assessments consistently identified and accurately described the skin condition for one resident (#2). The deficient practice could result in resident not receiving the appropriate care and services according to their needs. Findings Include: Resident #2 was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of abscess of bursa to right shoulder, cellulitis of right upper limb, end stage renal disease (ESRD), type 2 diabetes and anemia. The care plan dated February 17, 2023 included the resident had potential for pressure ulcer development related to right shoulder abscess, s/p (status post-surgical debridement, morbid obesity, and had a wound to the right shoulder. Interventions included to follow facility policies/protocol for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown; to monitor/document/report to physician as needed changes in skin status such as appearance, color, wound healing,…

    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 · D2023-05-26 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — isolated
    Provide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on personnel file review, staff interviews and facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that evidence of training to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services were not expired for two staff members (#92 and #132). The deficient practice could result in dietary not having the appropriate skills to carry out their functions and responsibilities. Findings include: -Regarding the dietary aide (staff #92) The personnel file of dietary aide (staff #92) revealed a hire dated of November 14, 2019. The file also included a completion of a Food Handler Card Training dated November 12, 2019 and was valid through November 12, 2022. However, there was no evidence found that the food handler card training was renewed and completed after November 12, 2022. Review of the punch details for staff #92 revealed that staff #92 worked more than 50% of the time after November 12, 2022. -Regarding dietary aide/cook (staff #132) The personnel file of dietary aide/cook (staff # 132) revealed a hire date of April 13, 2022. The file…

    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 · E2022-03-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interviews and review of facility documentation, policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that staff were consistently screened for COVID-19 upon entry to the facility and prior to working their shift. The deficient practice could result in the spread of infection to residents and staff. Findings include: During an observation conducted on February 28, 2022 at 8:00 a.m., the receptionist instructed the staff and visitors waiting in the lobby to wear a mask and perform hand hygiene using the alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) also located in the lobby. At the corner of the lobby, there was an I-Pad which the receptionist directed the staff and visitors to go for COVID-19 screening questions. The electronic screening questions included signs and symptoms of COVID-19, recent travel, COVID-19 exposure, and temperature. A laminated poster with information on handwashing and precautionary measures for symptomatic staff and visitors was also posted on the door as you entered the lobby. Review of the Labor Hours Reports dated February 19, 20 and 21, 2022…

    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 · D2022-03-04 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolated
    Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
    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, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure an ongoing activity was provided based on the comprehensive assessment and preferences for one resident (#462). The deficient practice could result in the not having meaningful activities based on the resident's interest and preferences. Findings Include: Resident #462 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of orthopedic aftercare, unilateral primary osteoarthritis, left hip and presence of left artificial hip joint. A nursing progress note dated February 16, 2022 revealed the resident was alert and oriented x 4 and was able to make needs known. An activity admission evaluation dated February 17, 2022 revealed the resident was alert and oriented to person, place and time with adequate communication and cognition skills. Activity interests included card games, computer games, puzzles, exercise groups, music, reading, walking and wheeling outdoors, sewing and watching…

    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 · D2022-03-04 · tag F0685 — isolated
    Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure care and assistance with the use of hearing aids was provided to one resident (#65). The deficient practice could lead to the resident not able to hear and maintain hearing abilities resulting in difficulty in communication. Findings include: Resident #65 was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified fracture of the shaft of the humerus, anxiety disorder and osteoarthritis. The care plan dated August 11, 2020 revealed the resident was at risk for communication problem related to hearing deficit and had bilateral hearing aids. The goal was that the resident will be able to make needs known on a daily basis. Interventions included to anticipate and meet needs, and use of adaptive communication equipment, hearing aid. A nursing progress note dated January 28, 2022 revealed the resident's hearing aids were delivered. The hearing aid service note dated January…

    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

“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.

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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 53.2+1.8 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.7+0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.4+0.6 vs chain
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
1 of 5Aspen Health And WellnessOverland Park, KS 1 of 5Bennett Hills Rehabilitation and Care CenterGooding, ID 1 of 5Broadway By The SeaLong Beach, CA 1 of 5Chatsworth Park Health Care CenterChatsworth, CA 1 of 5Clarion Wellness and Rehabilitation CenterClarion, IA 1 of 5Colonial Manor of RandolphRandolph, NE 1 of 5Durango Health And RehabilitationDurango, CO 1 of 5Fort Dodge Health and RehabilitationFort Dodge, IA 1 of 5Greater Southside Health and RehabilitationDes Moines, IA 1 of 5Hearthstone Health And RehabilitationSparks, NV 1 of 5Heritage Gardens Rehabilitation and HealthcareCarrollton, TX 1 of 5Hillcrest Health Care CenterHawarden, IA 1 of 5Lake Village Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterLewisville, TX 1 of 5Lakeside Rehabilitation and Care CenterCoeur d'Alene, ID 1 of 5Legend Oaks Healthcare And Rehabilitation - NorthAustin, TX 1 of 5Legend Oaks Healthcare And Rehabilitation - WaxahaWaxahachie, TX 1 of 5Legend Oaks Healthcare and Rehabilitation - Fort WKeller, TX 1 of 5Madera Post Acute CenterEl Monte, CA 1 of 5Medallion Post Acute RehabilitationColorado Springs, CO 1 of 5Mesquite Post Acute CareLubbock, TX 1 of 5Millbrook Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenterLancaster, TX 1 of 5Misty Willow Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenterHouston, TX 1 of 5New Orange HillsOrange, CA 1 of 5Northeast Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Northgate PlazaIrving, TX 1 of 5Oak View Health And RehabilitationConway, SC 1 of 5Oakwood Care And RehabilitationLakewood, CO 1 of 5Omaha Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterOmaha, NE 1 of 5Onion Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterAustin, TX 1 of 5Park Manor Bee CaveBee Cave, TX 1 of 5Pelican Pointe Health And Rehabilitation CenterWindsor, CO 1 of 5Premier Care Center For Palm SpringsPalm Springs, CA 1 of 5Provo Rehabilitation and NursingProvo, UT 1 of 5Rock Canyon Respiratory And Rehabilitation CenterPueblo, CO 1 of 5Rosewood Rehabilitation CenterReno, NV 1 of 5San Marcos Rehabilitation and Healthcare CenterSan Marcos, TX 1 of 5Sonterra Health CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5SouthlandNorwalk, CA 1 of 5Southland Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterLufkin, TX 1 of 5Spencer Post Acute Rehabilitation CenterSpencer, IA

Showing 40 of 341; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
MAJORS, MEGANIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/12/2025
NASSOUR, WILLIAMIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2020
BURNAM, SOONIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/28/2019
KEETCH, CHADIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2014
PETERSON, FORRESTIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/01/2024
PORT, BARRYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/01/2012
ENSIGN SERVICES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 02/28/2019
THE ENSIGN GROUP INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2022
WEST OLIVE HEALTH HOLDINGS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2022

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.

3 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.

$17.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+9.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.0M
Related-party expense13% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 74%Medicare 4%Other / private 22%

About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$364per resident / day
operating cost
$11,071per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$401per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Arizona Medicaid page.

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 035183. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-04, 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.

What to do next