La Canada Care Center
7970 North La Canada Drive, Tucson, AZ 85704 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 128 certified beds · (520) 797-1191 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- 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 $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2026-01-21)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.3% | 10.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.2% | 3.9% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.5% | 2.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.5% | 12.8% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.9% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.1% | 4.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.3% | 20.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.0% | 10.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.0% | 87.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.6% | 23.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.2% | 10.4% | 12.0% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
62.1% 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 187 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.9% 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 86 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 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 62.1%CMS range 55.5–68.9 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 8.8–14.8 | 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 | 70.9% | 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 | 65.1% | 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 | 47.7% | 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 | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 6.6%CMS range 4.1–10.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 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 128 beds and averages 97.5 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 30 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 3.26 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.04 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 2.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-01-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, interviews, review of facility documentation and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure medications administered to 1 of 3 sampled residents (#20) had physician orders. The census was 101. The deficient practice resulted in resident hospitalization due to a change in resident's condition.Findings include:Resident #20 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, essential tremor, epilepsy, dementia, spinal stenosis, cognitive communication deficit and syncope and collapse.The history & physical note dated January 12, 2026 included the resident was admitted at the facility for inpatient rehabilitation; and that, all medications were reviewed and reconciled. Assessments included history of TIA (transient ischemic attack); muscle weakness and seizure disorder. Medications included Primidone.A care plan initiated on January 13, 2026, revealed a focus on the resident having hypertension with interventions to give antihypertensive medications as ordered…
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.
- Actual harm · G2026-01-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, interviews, review of facility documentation and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 sampled residents (#20) was free from a significant medication error. The deficient practice could result in harm to the resident.Findings include:Resident #20 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, essential tremor, epilepsy, dementia, spinal stenosis, cognitive communication deficit and syncope and collapse.The physician order summary report active as of January 16, 2026 included the following medications:Acidophilus (Lactobacillus-probiotics), 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for probioticB-complex w/biotin & folic acid (supplement), 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for supplementClopidogrel bisulfate (antiplatelet) 75 mg (milligrams)1 tablet by mouth one time a day for a history of transient ischemic attackFluconazole (antifungal) 200 mg 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for toe infectionLoratadine (antihistamine) 10 mg 1 tablet by mouth one…
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 · Fcited before2026-04-24 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOT REVIEWED BY 22 Based on facility documentation, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that daily staff posting information was accurate for total numbers of direct care staff, actual hours worked by direct care staff, and actual staffing totals worked by licensed and unlicensed direct care nursing staff for 9 out of 9 days reviewed. The census was 92. The deficient practice could result in residents, visitors, and facility staff not being informed of accurate and current staffing information. Findings include: Review of 9 randomly selected days of daily staff postings with corresponding punch details revealed the actual hours worked on the daily staff postings were inaccurate related to the number of actual RN, LPN and CNAs working each shift, the actual number of hours worked each shift, and the total number of actual staff hours worked each day. The daily staff posting dated 10/25/2024, revealed a census of 101 residents with no evidence of the total number of nurses and CNAs that worked each shift or the total number of hours worked by all…
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 · D2026-04-24 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 record review, staff interviews, review of facility documents, and review of policies, the facility failed to protect the resident right to be free from chemical restraints by not administering pain medication in accordance with the physician's order for one resident (#1). The deficient practice could result in medications being administered without following the physician's order and could place the resident's health at risk for illnesses.Findings include:Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included a fracture of her right thigh with subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), muscle weakness, and epilepsy.The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15.0, indicating that the Resident was cognitively intact. Further, the assessment revealed that the Resident used opioid medications.A review of the physician's orders revealed…
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 · D2026-04-24 · 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 record review, staff interviews, review of facility documents, and review of policies, the facility failed to ensure that a blood pressure medication order was followed in compliance with a physician order according to accepted standards of clinical practice for one resident (#44). The deficient practice could result in medications being administered without following the physician's order and could place the resident's health at risk for illnesses.Findings include:Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of high blood pressure (hypertension), chronic pain syndrome, and urinary tract infection.A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15.0, indicating that the Resident cognition was intact.The Resident's care plan initiated on 10/10/2024, revealed that the Resident had hypertension. The interventions included for the staff to administer antihypertensive medications as ordered and monitor for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-05 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide housekeeping services necessary to maintain a clean and homelike environment for residents in three of four resident rooms and hallways. This deficient practice can increase the risk of infection, and not provide the residents with a safe and clean environment. Findings Include:A complaint received on the online complaint portal system, dated January 2, 2026, revealed that the facility did not seem to have enough staff to keep the facility clean, and that the overall cleanliness of the facility is not good. Additionally, the complainant revealed that staff would not clean up the floor after her meal tray spilled. On March 3, 2026, at approximately 8:42 a.m., an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted while both residents in Beds A and B were present. During the observation, trash and crumbs were noted on the floor. Multiple visible dark streaks were also observed in high-traffic areas of the flooring. During the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, interviews and facility policy, the facility failed to protect the rights of one of 13 sampled resident's (#600) to be free from abuse by another resident (#525). The deficient practice could result in residents being abused by other residents or staff.Findings include:A facility 5-day incident report, dated April 17, 2023, revealed that on April 9, 2023 at 10:55 p.m. Resident #525 was overheard by a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #64) and a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/staff #801), using obscenities including the racial profanity nigger towards Resident #600. The facility report included that the abuse was substantiated, resulting in no injury.-Resident #525 (alleged perpetrator):Resident #525 was originally admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included malnutrition, hemorrhagic telangiectasia, anxiety disorder, blindness in one eye, and insufficient sleep syndrome. A Medicare 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status…
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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that oxygen was administered per physician orders for one resident (#12). The sample size was 20. Findings include: The resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including anxiety disorder, unspecified dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance , anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, pleural effusion, other non specific findings of the lung field, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a wedge compression fracture. A review of the MDS (minimum data set) dated December 07, 2023 revealed that the resident had a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) score of 14, indicating that the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS further noted that the resident was on oxygen therapy. A review of the of the physician's orders dated January 2, 2024 for resident #12 revealed an order for 4 liters of oxygen per minute via nasal…
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 before2024-02-02 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that nurse staffing information was posted on a daily basis that included the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff and the resident census. Findings include: An interview was conducted on 2/2/2024 at 12:36 PM with the Staffing Coordinator (staff #18) who said daily staff postings should be accurate. She said that that she gets the numbers from the daily staff tracking form so staff must have left early or late that day. She reviewed the posting for 12/30/2023 and said that it was not accurate. An interview was conducted on 2/2/2024 at 12:56 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff#13) who said that daily staff postings should be accurate. She said that she'd have to assume that their numbers are accurate but she would have to double check. An interview was conducted on 2/2/2024 at 1:31 PM with the Administrator (staff #115) who said that he did not know if there was a policy regarding the accuracy of staff postings and that he would check with the Director of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-10-14 · tag F0645 — patternPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 that Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRR) were completed as required for 3 residents (#57, #34, and #41). The sample size was 3. The deficient practice increases the risk for residents being inappropriately placed into nursing facilities and/or not receiving the services they need. Findings include: -Resident #57 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis, acquired absence of right leg below the knee, and bipolar disorder. Review of the Level 1 PASRR dated 03/06/21 indicated the resident did not have serious mental illness, including bipolar disorder. Review of the clinical record revealed the resident was discharged from the facility on 12/03/21 and subsequently readmitted on [DATE]. The Level I PASRR evaluation dated 12/06/21 revealed the physician had certified before admission to the facility that the resident required 30 days or less of nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-10-14 · 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 review of facility logs and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence that temperatures for the reach-in refrigerator was consistently monitored. The deficient practice could result in foodborne illness. Findings include: During the initial kitchen observation conducted on October 11, 2022 at 8:12 a.m. the October kitchen log for the freezer and refrigerators were reviewed. The Kitchen Manager (staff #1110) was present during the walk-through and review of the logs conducted on October 11, 2022 at approximately 8:12 a.m. During the review, it was noticed that the reach-in refrigerator did not have a temperature log. The refrigerator had a thermometer inside and it indicated that the temperature was 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The refrigerator had items inside such as individual serving containers of salad and cottage cheese. During an interview with the Kitchen Manager (staff #1110) conducted on October 11, 2022 at 8:21 a.m., he stated that they did not have a temperature log for the reach-in refrigerator. When asked if there were logs from previous months, he…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-14 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 documentation, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#397) signed and was issued a written Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) when there was an ending of Medicare services. The sample size was 3. The deficient practice could result in residents not being informed of their potential liability for payment. Findings include: Resident #397 was admitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included unspecified fracture of left femur, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking. The resident was discharged [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the resident's face sheet revealed the resident was the financially responsible party. A weekly skilled nursing note dated April 20, 2022 indicated the resident was discharge ready and that the NOMNC was to be issued. Discharge was set for April 27, 2022. Review of a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, resident and staff interviews, clinical record review, review of facility documentation and policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (#191) who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received services to maintain good grooming. The sample size was 10. The deficient practice may result in residents with poor personal hygiene. Findings include: Resident #191 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included COVID-19, alcohol abuse, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An ADL self-care performance deficit care plan dated 09/28/22 related to decline with function and mobility had a goal to improve independence with ADL tasks and functional mobility. Interventions included required staff participation with bathing. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident scored 9 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The assessment also revealed the 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 · D2022-10-14 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, observation, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide care and services to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status for one resident (#24). The sample size was 4. The deficient practice could result in residents being at risk for potential nutritional decline. Findings include: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, respiratory failure, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, dysphagia and muscle weakness. A care plan initiated on April 14, 2022 included a problem for moderate malnutrition related to acute illness. The care plan goals stated resident #24 will maintain adequate nutritional status as evidenced by maintaining weight with no signs and symptoms of malnutrition. The intervention included the RD (registered dietician) evaluating and making diet changes recommendations as needed; supplement; and weekly weights for 4 weeks and then…
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.
- No harm found · Bcited before2022-10-14 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the posted daily nurse staffing information was accurate. The deficient practice resulted in information not being readily available to residents and visitors. Findings include: During an observation conducted on October 13, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., the nurse staffing information was observed posted on a bulletin board in the hallway. However, the posted staffing information did not include the actual hours worked by the staff. An interview was conducted with the staffing coordinator (staff #22) on October 14, 2022 at 11:12 a.m., who stated she does not know the hours worked until after the shift is over. Immediately following the interview, staffing information that was posted for the last 3 months was requested from staff #22. However, review of the staffing information postings dated August 1, 2022 through October 13, 2022 did not include the actual hours worked by staff. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (staff #26) on October 14, 2022 at 1:39 p.m.…
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
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2026-01-21
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 THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| EAGAR, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/26/2025 |
| JATOI, MANSOOR | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2020 |
| PETERSON, FORREST | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/25/2015 |
| JONES, CHRISTINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/26/2019 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/01/2011 |
| SATO, AMI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/09/2024 |
| INVASERV LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2015 |
| NURSA INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2015 |
| PORT, BARRY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/23/2025 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2015 |
| LA CANADA ASSOCIATES (LCA), LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 12 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 $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AZ
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Arizona Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 035189. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-24, 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.