Sun Health Grandview Care Center
14505 West Granite Valley Drive, Sun City West, AZ 85375 · Non profit - Corporation · 72 certified beds · (623) 975-8100 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (36% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 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 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 8.8% | 10.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 3.9% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.9% | 2.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.6% | 12.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.3% | 21.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.5% | 4.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.2% | 20.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.7% | 10.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.2% | 87.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.3% | 23.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.5% | 10.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.95 | 1.47 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.00 | 1.42 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 365 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 81.4% 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 156 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 0.65 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 90% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 59.9%CMS range 54.3–65.8 | 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 | 13.8%CMS range 10.9–16.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 81.4% | 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 | 80.1% | 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 | 51.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 2.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.1%CMS range 4.8–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.83 | 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 72 beds and averages 60.8 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.27 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.94 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.82 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 4.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.53 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.07 to 0.61 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records review, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were not left at the resident's bedside for 2 of 61 sampled residents (#36, #39). The deficient practice could result in the overmedication or undermedication of residents.-Regarding Resident #36Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracture of the right femur, unspecified fall, acute post hemorrhagic anemia, and hypotension.An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicating intact cognition.During an initial observation of Resident #36's room on July 29, 2025 at 1:40 p.m., a container of Refresh lubricant eye drops 0.5 fl oz (fluid ounce) medication was observed lying on the resident's bedside table.Review of provider orders, revealed no evidence of orders for the Refresh lubricant eye drops. An interview was conducted on July 29, 2025, at…
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 · D2025-08-01 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews, and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure two (#21 and #104) of 61 sampled residents' privacy was respected.Findings included: Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included aftercare following joint replacement surgery, urinary tract infection, and unspecified dementia. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] included a brief interview for mental status score of 4 indicating the resident severe cognitive impairment. The care plan dated July 17, 2025 revealed that resident #21 has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to dementia. Interventions included to ask yes/no questions in order to determine the resident's needs and present just one thought, idea, question or command at a time. -Resident #104 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, chronic kidney disease, and sepsis due to escherichia. The MDS 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 · D2025-08-01 · 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 observations, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control was followed and maintained regarding placement of the catheter bag for one of 1 sampled residents (#23). The deficient practice could result in development and transmission of infections.Findings include:Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, retention of urine, type 2 diabetes mellitus with a foot ulcer, and depression.The admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating the resident had intact cognition. The assessment also included that the resident had an indwelling catheter.The foley catheter care plan initiated on July 6, 2025, included interventions to maintain a closed drainage system with the drainage bag lower than the bladder at all times and on a privacy bag.During an interview with Resident…
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 · E2024-08-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in accordance with appropriate temperature guidelines for facility refrigerators and the kitchen freezer. The universe was 57. The deficient practice could increase the risk for foodborne illness. Findings include: An observation was conducted on July 29, 2024 at approximately 7:40 A.M on the third floor of the facility. The refrigerator temperature log identified with the location of Canyon revealed that on July 22, 2024, the refrigerator had a temperature of 44 degrees Fahrenheit at 8:00 A.M. Per the temperature log, there was not documented evidence that any corrective action had taken place or that the manager had reviewed the temperature log for that day. A further review of refrigerator temperature logs, revealed that for the Red Rock location on July 7, 2024 and July 20, 2024 the refrigerator was outside of designated parameters. The temperature noted for July 7, 2024 at 4:28 P.M. was noted to be 45 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature noted on July 20, 2024 at 4:31 was…
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 · D2024-08-01 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, and facility policies, the facility failed to develop and complete a Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within the required timeframe for Resident # 11. The deficient practice could result in delayed identification of potential risks and care needs of the residents. Findings include: Resident # 11 was admitted into the facility on February 24, 2024 at 09:05 PM with diagnoses that included atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery with unspecified angina pectoris, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and unspecified chronic kidney disease. Review of the MDS assessment history, revealed an Admissions MDS Assessment was completed and accepted March 01, 2024. Resident # 11 was discharged on March 09, 2024 at 11:00 AM; however, medical records revealed no discharge MDS was completed at this time. An interview was conducted on July 30, 2024 at 08:55 AM with MDS Coordinator (Staff #970) who stated the MDS Coordinator role was to complete admission entry records…
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 · D2024-08-01 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a physician order for the use of a foley catheter was in place for one resident (#20). The sample size was 15. The deficient practice could result in inappropriate use of a catheter. Findings include: Resident #20 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including sepsis, UTI (urinary tract infection), klebsiella pneumoniae, hypertension and hypothyroidism. A review of the admission MDS (minimum data set) dated July 24, 2024 revelaed that resident #20 had a BIMS (brief interview of mental score) of 14, suggesting that the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the physician orders in the electronic health records revealed no evidence of a physician order for a catheter or catheter care. A review of the TAR (treatment administration record) since admission of the resident, revealed no evidence of an order for catheter care or that catheter care was being tracked or that input or output were being…
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 · D2024-05-24 · 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 observations, clinical record review, interviews and policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one resident was appropriately supervised to prevent a fall with major injury. The deficient practice can contribute to residents being injured during a fall. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility December 7, 2023 and discharged to the hospital December 17, 2023. Resident #19 was re-admitted to the facility December 21, 2023 with diagnoses to include displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, transient cerebral ischemic attack, unspecified, weakness. The MDS (minimum data set) dated December 13, 2023 indicate a brief interview for mental status was conducted revealing a BIMS score of 15suggesting resident is cognitively intact. The resident was assessed to be partial to moderate assist with upper dressing, substantial to maximal assist with lower dressing and partial to moderate assist with sit to stand and with toilet…
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 · D2023-10-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 review, staff interviews, and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to update the fall care plan for one resident (#13). The deficient practice could result in more falls. Findings include: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included age related osteoporosis, dementia, cellulitis of left lower limb, and muscle weakness. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] included a brief interview for mental status score of 14 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. It also included that the resident needed a two-person extensive assist with bed mobility, transfers, and toileting and a one-person extensive assist with locomotion on the unit. Review of the fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the resident's last fall was on July 1, 2023 and was a high risk for falls. The care plan dated July 7, 2023 revealed the resident was at risk for falls related to recent and history of falls, left hip pain, her left leg is shorter than the right…
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 · D2023-09-22 · 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 closed clinical record review, interviews, and policies, the facility failed to ensure skin assessment was conducted as ordered by the physician for one resident (#1). The deficient practice could result in skin issues not identified and treated as appropriate. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of unilateral primary osteoarthritis, cognitive communication deficit, and type 2 diabetes. An undated care plan included that the resident was at risk for skin breakdown and poor skin integrity related to limited mobility. The goal was for the resident to maintain skin integrity and resident's problematic areas will improve or be healed. Interventions included to monitor for and report all red areas. A physician orders dated October 14, 2022 included the following: -Braden Scale Risk Assessment every one week for four weeks; -Braden Scale Risk Assessment quarterly and as needed; and, -Weekly skin assessment. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SUN HEALTH SERVICES | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2011 |
| CAVANAUGH-MARSH, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| GILSTRAP, GREG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| HASKELL, CORNELIUS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2022 |
| HOFFMAN, SINTRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/17/2025 |
| KOVALA, IRENE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2017 |
| LA RUE, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/31/2018 |
| LANCASTER, LEWIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/21/2017 |
| MARRER, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2022 |
| ORCUTT, HERMAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2012 |
| ORLOPP, SHARON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| REIFSTECK, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2023 |
| RIVERA, REY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| SOLOMON, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2017 |
| RUNGE, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| THOMPSON, KIMBERLEY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2023 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/11/2021 |
| SALTMARSH | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/15/2025 |
| SUN HEALTH SENIOR LIVING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/24/2025 |
| BOJORQUEZ, KELLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/24/2023 |
| KEATING, CHERIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| LAKSHMIPATHY, ARUN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/11/2005 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 37 rows in the source record cover these 22 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.
4 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 $1.3M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AZ
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 035265. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-24, 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.