Diamondback Healthcare Center
3000 N 91st Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85037 · For profit - Individual · 94 certified beds · (623) 303-2882 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- the CMS record shows $5,073 in federal fines (most recent 2024-01-08)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (72%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 25.7% | 10.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.5% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.2% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 3.9% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.6% | 0.3% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 2.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 47.3% | 12.8% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.8% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.4% | 94.6% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.7% | 4.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.2% | 20.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.9% | 10.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.6% | 87.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.0% | 23.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.9% | 10.4% | 12.0% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
76.7% 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 362 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 53.6% 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 153 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 0.73 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 93% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 76.7%CMS range 71.5–81.4 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 7.9–13.0 | 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 | 53.6% | 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 | 41.8% | 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 | 44.4% | 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 | 98.6% | 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 | 97.6% | 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 | 97.3% | 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 | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.8%CMS range 3.9–8.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 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 94 beds and averages 91.3 residents a day — about 97% 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 4.91 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.51 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.22 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 72% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-06 · 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 observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that food is labeled and dated after opening in accordance with professional food safety standards. The deficient practice may result in practices of food storage that may not be in accordance with professional food safety standards. Findings include:An observation of the kitchen was conducted on January 4, 2026, at 8:40 AM with the facility's Dietary Manager (DM/Staff #152). The following food items were discovered without labels indicating what date they had been opened: Two liquid egg cartons did not have an opened date label.One bag of chicken tenders in the freezer without opened date label.One bag of tilapia in the freezer had no opened date label. One bag of hot dog buns had no opened date label.The dietary manager proceeded to remove these items from the refrigerator and freezer and disposed of the food with no open date labels.An interview was conducted on January 5, 2026, at 10:40 AM with the DM/Staff #152, who stated that the food should be labeled with the date that it is opened,…
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 · D2026-02-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interviews, and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure proper infection prevention and control practices were implemented related to contact precautions for one resident of 5 residents (#117) and the facility failed to ensure that community infection control surveillance mapping was documented. The deficient practice could result in transmission of infection in the facility.Findings include: -Regarding Contact Precautions: Resident #117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile (C. Difficile), not specified as recurrent, urinary tract infection, site not specified, and other psychoactive substance abuse.Review of the comprehensive care plan dated February 3, 2026 revealed a focus for C. Difficile with interventions that included to use contact precautions such as: gowns and gloves during high-contact care activities, wear gowns and masks when changing contaminated…
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 · D2026-01-29 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on closed record review, staff interviews, review of facility process and policy, and the State Operations Manual the facility failed to ensure that all transfer/discharge notifications were made for two residents (#17 and #22). The deficient practice could lead to notifications and pertinent information regarding the discharge/transfer not being provided.Findings include:Regarding Resident #17 -Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, fracture of the left femur, pulmonary hypertension, heart failure, and pneumonia. Review of the Ombudsman notification provided by the facility revealed no corresponding notification pertaining to the hospital transfer on September 5, 2024. The notification information provided was dated August 29, 2024 which was for a planned discharge. Review of the resident's face sheet revealed that the husband was listed as the responsible party while the daughter was listed as the emergency contact. The face sheet…
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 · D2026-01-29 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately document that a medication was discontinued and rationale thereof for one (#28) of three sampled residents. The deficient practice could result in negatively impacting continuity of care documentation. Findings include:Review of Resident #28's hospital records prior to admission revealed that she was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. Upon discharge from the hospital, the medication list indicated no medication changes, and included olanzapine 2.5 mg by mouth once daily.Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including: urinary tract infection, resistance to multiple antibiotics, noninfective gastroenteritis and colitis, cerebral palsy, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and depression.Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS further…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, interviews and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered within the physician ordered parameters for Resident #09. The deficient practice may result in medications being administered outside physician ordered parameters.Findings Include:Resident # 09 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypotension, dependence on respirator (ventilator) status, and bradycardia. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS) score of 3, indicated the resident cognition was severely impaired.Review of the medical records revealed medication orders with start date of May 07, 2024:Carvedilol Oral Tablet 3.125 milligram; Give 2 tablet enterally two times a day for hypertension (HTN); Hold if systolic blood pressure (SBP) is less that 110; Hold if heart rate (HR) is…
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 · D2025-01-07 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 documentation, observations, staff interviews and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin and complete a 5-day written investigation in accordance to their Abuse Policy's required timeframe for one resident (#2). The sample size was three. The deficient practice may result in residents being abused or receiving the appropriate treatment and care untimely. Findings include: Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of anoxic brain damage, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, epilepsy, gangrene and necrosis of lung. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 which meant the resident did not have the BIMS assessment completed. The MDS assessment revealed that the resident was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. A review of the care plan revealed that the resident had a communication problem: rarely/never understood and rarely/never understands related to severe…
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 · D2025-01-07 · 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 documentation, observations, staff interviews and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin within required timeframe for one resident (#2). The sample size was three. The deficient practice may result in residents being abused or receiving the appropriate treatment and care untimely. Findings include: Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of anoxic brain damage, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, epilepsy, gangrene and necrosis of lung. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 which meant the resident did not have the BIMS assessment completed. The MDS assessment revealed that the resident was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. A review of the care plan revealed that the resident had a communication problem: rarely/never understood and rarely/never understands related to severe cognitive loss due to anoxic brain damage history, with an intervention to…
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 · D2024-10-31 · 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 observation, interview, review of facility documentation, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that care and services were provided according to professional standards for one of one sampled resident (#42). The deficient practice could result in care not being provided to accepted standards of practice, leading to harm to a resident. -Findings include: Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included traumatic hemorrhage of cerebrum, Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, and protein-calorie malnutrition. The admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the resident's brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score was 03, which indicated resident was severely cognitively impaired. Moreover, revealed the resident required substantial assistance for bed mobility and was totally dependent on staff for transfers from bed to chair. The assessment also indicated the resident had one unstageable unhealed pressure wound. An admission…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on personnel record reviews, facility documentation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staffs had competencies or skills needed to provide care for 8 residents on ventilator and tracheostomy. The facility census was 75. The deficient practice could result in patients with ventilator and tracheostomy (Vent/ Trach) not receiving care that they need. Findings include: Review of the Vent/Trach Census revealed eight (8) residents identified with a tracheotomy, ventilator or both a tracheotomy and ventilator. Review of the facility staff schedule dated August 11, 2024 revealed the following staff scheduled for the 6:00pm to 6:00 am shift for the facility: - For A Wing (Ventilator/ Tracheostomy unit) : LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)/Staff #201 LPN/Staff #38 LPN/Staff #157 (requested off) - For C Wing: LPN/Staff #116 LPN/Staff #34 - 2nd Floor Nurse: LPN/Staff #67 The staff schedule did not reveal that a Respiratory Therapist (RT) was scheduled for 6pm to 6am schedule. One RT staff (#68) was only scheduled for 6:00a.m-6:30p.m. Review of the personnel…
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 · D2023-04-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure that controlled medications were secured in a separately locked, permanently affixed compartment. This deficient practice could result in controlled medication accessible to unauthorized personnel. Findings include: On April 4, 2023 at 9:25 a.m., an observation of the medication storage room A was conducted with a licensed practical nurse (LPN/staff #70). A refrigerator was inside the medication room was not locked and had no locking mechanism visible. Inside the refrigerator was a locked box/container which the LPN said was a container for storage of controlled medications. Also, inside the refrigerator was a box of medication that contained a bottle of unopened lorazepam (antianxiety) oral concentrate belonging to a resident. The bottle of lorazepam was not inside the locked box/container found in the refrigerator. On April 4, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., the survey team was provided with access cards that allowed access to the use of the elevators. This access card was also allowed…
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.
- 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
$5,073 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $1,899 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
- $3,174 — penalty dated 2023-12-18
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 91ST AVENUE HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 05/03/2021 |
| IH-AZ HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/03/2021 |
| LOTUS DEVELOPMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/03/2021 |
| MATRIX CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/03/2021 |
| PRIME ACCESS MORTGAGE INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/03/2021 |
| RED CLOVER TECHNOLOGY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/03/2021 |
| ASCENSION ALPHA FUND, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/03/2025 |
| CALIFORNIA IRONWORKERS FIELD PENSION TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/03/2025 |
| LOCUST POINTE SENIOR DEBT FUND, II, L.P. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/03/2025 |
| LPC GP II, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 09/03/2025 |
| LPPC FEEDER, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/03/2025 |
| PACIFIC PRIVATE CREDIT FUND III L. P. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/03/2025 |
| TEACHER'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/03/2025 |
| SMITH, ERIC | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/29/2025 |
| SEIF, YEHOSHUA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| DBAZ MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| RESOLVE OF PHOENIX POST ACUTE, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| COHEN, YAAKOV | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FELICIANO, ELMA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FELICIANO, JOSE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
| GARCIA, ANSELMO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| HASAN, OMAIR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2026 |
| NASSOUR, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| 91ST AVENUE PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/25/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 43 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
16 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.
This home reported $487K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AZ
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Arizona Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 035302. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-06, 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.