Life Care Center Of Scottsdale
9494 East Becker Lane, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 132 certified beds · (480) 860-6396 Medicare only — no Medicaid
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $6,414 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-12)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) 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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.0% | 87.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.9% | 23.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.3% | 10.4% | 12.0% | worse |
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.
63.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 245 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 86.5% 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 89 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 0.83 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 36% 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 | 63.5%CMS range 57.4–68.9 | 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 | 10.4%CMS range 7.8–13.3 | 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 | 86.5% | 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 | 82.0% | 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 | 67.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 97.8% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.6% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.6–10.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 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 132 beds and averages 63.3 residents a day — about 48% occupied, or roughly 69 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.98 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.19 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-09-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on closed record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided to prevent pressure ulcers from developing and worsening for one (#144) of one resident. The deficient practice could result in a decline in a resident's overall health. Findings include: Resident #144 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, paraplegia, and multiple sclerosis. Review of the care plan revealed a focus dated April 18, 2023 that the resident was at risk for breaks in skin integrity. The goal of this area was to maintain intact skin with no skin breaks, and interventions including weekly skin checks. Review of the Admission/readmission Collection Tool completed on April 18, 2023 revealed that on admission, the resident had an open wound to the left heel and blanchable redness to the coccyx. These were the only skin impairments documented in this tool. Review of physician orders revealed an order dated April…
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 · D2026-02-12 · 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 staff interviews, facility documentation, and review of facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure that 1 out of 4 sampled residents (Resident # 52), received only medications that were ordered for them by a physician. The deficient practice could result in adverse drug interactions.Findings include:Resident # 52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, acute skin changes due to ultraviolet radiation, dysphagia, difficulty walking, and unspecified malignant neoplasm of skin of left lower limb, including hip. Review of the order summary report revealed no orders for Duloxetine 30 milligrams (mg) nor Omeprazole 20 mg. Review of the medical diagnosis revealed no diagnosis of depression or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed no indication of depression or anxiety. The MDS also revealed no active diagnoses of any psychiatric or mood disorders. A Case Management note dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-14 · 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 clinical record review, resident representative and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that an incident involving staff to resident abuse was documented completely in the clinical record for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#14). The deficient practice could result in incomplete documentation in resident medical records and continued abuse. Findings include: Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included entercolitis due to clostridium difficile, fracture of the left ulna, fracture of nasal bones, fracture of the left radius, anxiety, female genital prolapse, major depressive disorder, vaginal enterocele, and dysphagia. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the facility investigation dated April 30, 2025 revealed that at 3:45 p.m. on April 30, 2025, an Occupational Therapist (OT/Staff#127) reported to the Director…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident's (#148) and/or the representative were provided opportunities for participation in the care and treatment planning process. The deficient practice could result in residents not being provided the opportunity to participate in the care planning process. Findings include: Resident #148 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included subdural hemorrhage, cognitive communication deficit, and atrial fibrillation. Review of a Health Care Power of Attorney, dated March 15, 2006, included the resident's signature and indicated that her son was designated as her agent for all matters relating to her healthcare. Review of the admission information dated March 23, 2023, revealed that Resident #148 was her own responsible party, and her emergency contact was her son. Review of the clinical record revealed no evidence that the baseline care plan was reviewed with the resident 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on documentation, staff and resident interviews, and policy and procedures the facility failed to ensure that one of one sampled residents (#145) received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The deficient practice could result in resident injuries. Resident #145 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracture of left humerus, subluxation of left shoulder, heart failure, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and long term use of insulin. Resident #147's comprehensive care plan initiated on April 25, 2024 and revised on August 09, 2024, included the following: -Resident requires ADL assistance with interventions including to assist with mobility. -Activity of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to limited mobility and pain, with interventions to encourage resident to use bell to call for assistance. -At risk for falls, deconditioning, gait/balance problems, vision/hearing problems with interventions that included to anticipate the resident's needs, educate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that refrigerated food was not expired. The deficient practice could result in potential affect to all residents in facility. During the initial tour of the kitchen on September 09, 2024 at 8:39AM, conducted with the Dietary Manager (Staff #9), during an observation of the refrigerator, one container of Horseradish was labeled with a received date of 11/8/2023 and opened on 11/10/23. Further observed revealed that the best used by date from the manufacture was April 06, 2024. The Dietary Manager stated that they can use the Horseradish condiment after the used by the date for up to a year. The Dietary Manager immediately throw the horseradish condiment into a trashcan. An interview was conducted on September 11, 2024 at 09:12 AM with the Dietary Manager (Staff #9) and Consultant Dietitian (Staff #185). The Consultant Dietitian stated that the facility process for the expired food is that it should be discarded and thrown away. She further stated that the food can be used after the best if used…
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 · E2024-06-04 · 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 records, facility documents, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents wounds were assessed and treated per professional standards for 3 residents. (#11, 4, 19). This deficient practice can result in significant increases in morbidity and mortality related to wounds. Findings include: Regarding Resident #11: -Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of osteomyelitis of the vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, paraplegia and encounter for surgical aftercare. A care plan initiated 7/2/2023 included that the resident has a break in skin integrity with interventions to provide treatment as ordered and a pressure reducing mattress. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] included this resident is cognitively intact, has 1 stage 4 pressure ulcer and a surgical wound. A CAA(Care Area Assessment) Worksheet included (Resident #11) has a (history of pressure injury) which has now been treated surgically with flap closure. She…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-04 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical records, facility documents, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents pressure wounds were assessed and treated per professional standards for 1 residents. (#19). This deficient practice can result in significant increases in morbidity and mortality related to wounds. Findings include: -Resident #19 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of nondisplaced fracture of base of neck of right femur. Review of hospital records dated 5/29/2024 did not include pressure ulcers. An admission MDS dated [DATE] included this resident does not have memory issues and was independent for making decisions for daily life. This MDS was not completed in sections on M Skin Conditions or GG Functional Abilities and Goals. A care plan dated 5/29/2024 did not include pressure ulcers or risk of developing pressure ulcers. An Admission/readmission Collection Tool included that the resident had a right heel intact clear blister. This note included that the resident was to be seen by…
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 · E2023-01-19 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 resident and staff interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation and policy, the facility failed to ensure that code status was consistent in the medical record for two residents (#21 and #306). The deficient practice could result in resident not receiving care consistent with their signed advance directive. Findings include: -Resident #21 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified fracture of right patella, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, COVID-19, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, type 2 diabetes with diabetic neuropathy and anemia. The physician order dated [DATE] revealed a code status of do not resuscitate (DNR). The baseline care plan dated [DATE] revealed the resident had an advanced directive of DNR-do not resuscitate and had a signed DNR. Interventions included for advanced directives will be honored. Continued review of the electronic clinical record revealed documentation that the resident had a DNR…
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 · E2023-01-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two sampled residents (#40 and #35) had a physician order for oxygen use prior to its administration. The deficient practice could result in oxygen not administered appropriately and as recommended by the physician. Findings include: -Resident #40 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of COVID-19, pneumonia due to Coronavirus disease 2019 and asthma with acute exacerbation. A review of the care plan dated December 22, 2022 revealed the resident had COVID-19 infection. Intervention included medication as ordered. However, the care plan did not include the use of oxygen with interventions. A review of admission/readmission note dated December 22, 2022 included the resident was admitted with pneumonia and ESRD (end stage renal disease). Per the documentation, the oxygen saturation was 95 on 3 liters NC (nasal cannula). Review of the order note dated December 22, 2022 revealed the resident desaturated 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 · E2023-01-19 · tag F0888 — patternEnsure staff are vaccinated for COVID-19
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, facility documentation and policy and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) interim final rule requirements, the facility failed to ensure twelve staff members (#91, #89, #75, #96, #70, #86, #78, #61, #63, #24, #31 and #29) were vaccinated for COVID-19. The facility census was 57 residents. The deficient practice could result in the spread of COVID-19 in the facility. Findings include: Review of facility documentation revealed a staff list with COVID-19 vaccination information. On this list, 11 staff members did not have documentation indicating that they were fully vaccinated for COVID-19 or had vaccination exemptions or had an approved temporary delay of vaccination. According to the documentation, one staff (#29) was partially vaccinated and did not have documentation staff had vaccination exemptions or an approved temporary delay of vaccination. An interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (staff #27) on January 19, 2023 at 11:54 am. She stated all staffs hired are required to have primary COVID-19 vaccination completed…
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 · D2023-01-19 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on closed record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure that all transfer/discharge notifications were made for one resident (#53). The deficient practice could lead to notifications of resident transfer/ discharge not being made to all required parties. Findings include: Resident # 53 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified nephritic syndrome with diffuse membranous glomerulonephritis, acute kidney failure, unspecified atrial fibrillation and dependence on renal dialysis. A physician order dated [DATE] revealed an order to send the resident to the acute care hospital. The transfer to hospital form (interact) dated [DATE] included the resident was sent to an acute care hospital on [DATE] for respiratory arrest. A progress note dated [DATE] revealed the resident was sent to an acute care hospital and the MD (medical doctor) was notified. Continued review of the clinical record revealed no further documentation related to this incident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-01-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident and staff interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation and policy, the facility failed to meet professional standards of practice by failing ensure a wound treatment solution was not left at bedside and available for use for one resident (#35). The deficient practice resulted in the resident improperly and inappropriately taking the medication. Findings include: Resident #35 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, muscle weakness, need for assistance with personal care and difficulty in walking. The care management note dated December 16, 2022 included the resident had a sacral wound. A skilled note dated December 18, 2022 included the resident had osteomyelitis of the vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region. The minimum data set (MDS) assessment signed December 27, 2022 revealed the brief interview of mental status (BIMS) was not completed. A physician order dated January 4, 2023 included for Dakin's ¼…
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 · D2023-01-19 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolatedProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, and policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#354) received ostomy care in accordance with professional standards of practice. The deficient practice could result in untimely waste removal and complications such as skin breakdown. Findings include: Resident #354 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of urinary tract infection, surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system and need for assistance with personal care. The admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] included the resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers and toilet use. The assessment also included that ostomy was coded. The physician order summary included an order dated January 18, 2023 to cleanse the abdomen with NS (normal saline), lightly pack openings with 1/4 Dakins soaked iodoform packing and cover with dry dressing daily every day shift for wound care. However, there was no order…
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 · D2023-01-19 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that ongoing assessment and monitoring for complications pre and post-dialysis treatments was provided for one resident (#35). This deficient practice could result in complications with the fistula/shunt not identified and managed. Findings include: Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of end stage renal disease ESRD and dependence on renal dialysis. A physician order dated December 14, 2022 revealed to send resident to dialysis on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; medication orders had appropriate times of at least 2 hours prior to or after return from dialysis; and, pre-and post-dialysis vitals and weight every shift every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The care plan dated December 14, 2022 revealed resident had chronic renal failure related to kidney disease (ESRD). The goal was that the resident will have no signs or symptoms or complications related to fluid deficit.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$6,414 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $6,414 — penalty dated 2024-09-12
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 193; 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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRESTON, FORREST | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/1985 |
| BUTNER, NANCY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/16/2018 |
| LEHMAN, ADIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/02/2025 |
| ROGGE, KELLI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/06/2025 |
| CROSS, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/21/1994 |
| HENRY, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/16/1999 |
| THURMOND, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/22/2000 |
| LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/1985 |
| FLETCHER, TODD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2021 |
| LAY, LISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/24/2017 |
| PRABHAKARAN, VINAY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/28/2025 |
| PRESTON, AUBREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/27/2024 |
| SWANKER, RICHARD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2002 |
| ZIEGLER, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/18/2001 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AZ
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Arizona Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 035143. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-28, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.