Splendido At Rancho Vistoso
13500 North Rancho Vistoso Blvd, Tucson, AZ 85755 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 42 certified beds · (520) 878-2600 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (18% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2026
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-10)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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 held steady at 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 | 20.0% | 10.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.9% | 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 | 0.8% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 3.9% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 2.3% | 2.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.6% | 12.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.1% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.2% | 4.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.6% | 20.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.7% | 10.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 87.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 4.1% | 23.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.5% | 10.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.27 | 1.47 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.31 | 1.42 | 1.80 | 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.
63.4% 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 163 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.3% 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 62 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 26% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 63.4%CMS range 55.8–69.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 6.8–13.8 | 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 | 61.3% | 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 | 53.2% | 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 | 48.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.5% | 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 | 5.9% | 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 | 6.0%CMS range 3.2–10.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 42 beds and averages 35.4 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 7 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 4.97 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.555 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.05 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 4.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.23 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 18% 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 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-09-10 · 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 clinical record review, interviews, review of facility policies and the State Agency (SA) complaint tracking system, the facility failed to use a two-person transfer, as identified by the comprehensive care plan, resulting in the resident #1's fall with injury. The deficient practice could result in increased risk of injury to the resident. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified dementia, degenerative disease of nervous system and repeated falls. A review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a staff assessment for mental status indicating resident #1 had a memory problem with both short-term memory and long-term memory. It was also assessed that resident #1's cognitive skills for daily decision making to be moderately impaired. The same MDS assessment also indicated resident #1 was entirely dependent on staff for assistance or the assistance of 2 or more helpers required with sit to stand and bed-to-chair transfer. 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 · D2026-06-09 · 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 clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to protect the rights for one Resident (#6) out of the four sampled residents to be free from physical abuse by another resident (#10). The deficient practice could result in other residents being abused.Finding include--Regarding Resident #6Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included depression with psychotic symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia.A quarterly MDS (minimum data set) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The mood assessment revealed that the resident felt down, depressed, or hopeless in 2 -6 days of the assessment.A behavior progress note dated May 27, 2026, revealed that the Resident was involved in a resident to resident altercation involving slapping the arm of another resident. The note indicated no injuries were noted and that the resident admitted she had no intent to harm…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-28 · 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
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that there were no expired over the counter medications, nutritional supplements and syringes readily available for resident use, the sample size is 38 residents. The deficient practice could result in an increased risk for side effects. Findings include: On March 26, 2025 at 7:51 A.M. an observation of a medication preparation was conducted for Resident # 287 by staff Registered Nurse (RN / staff #122). Aspirin 81 oral tablet delayed release 81 mg was prepared for the resident, the medication was found to have an expiration date of August 2023. The expiration date was brought to the attention of RN / staff #122, who immediately disposed of the medication. The medication was not given to resident #287. A new bottle was retrieved from the medication supply room. Medication was prepared and dispensed without incident for the involved resident. Following the observation conducted on March 26, 2025 at 7:51 A.M., an interview was conducted with RN / staff #122, who stated that the medication was provided by 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 · Ecited before2025-03-28 · 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 observations, interviews and review of policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure food storage and service were in accordance with professional standards regarding storing of food boxes and staff wearing a bonnet. The deficient practices could increase the risk for foodborne illness. Findings include: An observation on March 25, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. revealed boxes in the refrigerator and freezer on the top shelf. These items were too close to the ceiling. The boxes included: four boxes of spinach, half & half, whipping cream, and broccoli in the refrigerator. In the freezer: cookies, fudge bars, wheat, bakers misc., royal Danish pastries. All the boxes were on the top shelf blocking the sprinkler system. A return observation occurred on March 26, 2025 at 10:40 a.m. The boxes were still stacked on the top shelf in the refrigerator and the freezer. An observation on March 26, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. showed a red line on the wall in the main kitchen area. The line is used to ensure boxes/items are not stacked higher than is appropriate. An observation was conducted on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-28 · 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 clinical record review, staff interviews, observations, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were not left unattended on a bedside table for one of 44 sampled residents(#142).The deficient practice could result in medications not being administered as ordered or another resident/person consuming the medication. Findings include: Resident (#142) was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. An admission Minimum Data Set ( MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated intact cognition. A care plan initiated on March 18, 2025 revealed no evidence of a focus or interventions regarding self-administration of medications. A physician order dated March 18, 2025, revealed the following: -Albuterol Sulfate HFA Inhalation Aerosol Solution 108 (90 Base) MCG/ACT-two puff inhale orally every 4 hours as needed for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-06 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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, staff interviews and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered as ordered by the physician for 1 resident (#21). This practice could result in decreased deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Findings include: Resident #21 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnose of personal history of transient ischemic attack, cerebral infarction, and cardiac septal defect. A care plan dated April 14, 2023 included that the resident has Cerebral Vascular Accident and history of transient ischemic attack with an intervention of giving medications as ordered by the physician. A physician's order dated June 24, 2023 included Aspirin Oral Tablet Chewable (Aspirin), Give 81 mg by mouth one time a day for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. An observation was conducted on October 19, 2023 at 7:32 AM of a Registered Nurse (RN/staff #32) administering a 81mg enteric coated aspirin to resident #21 An interview was conducted on October 19, 2023 at 10:41 a.m. with the RN…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that cleaning clothes were stored in accordance with professional standards and that a beard nets were worn by two staff member. The deficient practice could result in placing residents at risk for food-borne illnesses. Findings include: A kitchen observation was conducted on October 17, 2023 at 8:40 AM. The observation revealed a dry cleaning rag on the top shelf of the central food preparation area adjacent to the plating area. Two additional rags were observed on a shelf above the sink in the main kitchen area, directly on top of a sealed bag of pita pocket bread. The executive chef took pictures of each identified rag and its placement. An interview was conducted immediately thereafter with the executive chef, staff #110, who stated that the expectation was the cleaning rags are to be stored underneath the counters and not on food preparation or storage areas. He stated that the risk could include a potential for infection or foodborne illness. A kitchen observation was conducted on October…
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 · E2022-08-25 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 facility policy, the facility failed to monitor target behaviors and adverse effects for three residents receiving pyschotropic medications (#1, #17, and #7). The sample size was five residents. The deficient practice could result in residents receiving psychotropic medications without adequate monitoring. Findings include: -Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the resident's psychotropic medication care plan, revised May 24, 2022 revealed the resident was taking psychotropic medications related to depression, anxiety, and hallucinations. The care plan noted the resident struggles with loss of independence and continual physical decline. Interventions included monitoring for adverse effects, and monitor/record occurrence of target behavior symptoms and document per facility policy. Review of June 2022 recapitulation 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 · D2022-08-25 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one resident's (#23) call light and water was accessible. The deficient practice could result in residents' needs not being met. Findings include: Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included muscle weakness and anxiety disorder. Review of the resident's fall care plan, revised on April 21, 2022, revealed the resident was at risk for falls due to being a new admission. Interventions included to keep the call light within reach when the resident is in her room, keep personal items within reach, and provide routine rounds to address the resident's needs. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated July 26, 2022, revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 3, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The assessment included the resident needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, toilet use, and personal hygiene. An observation was conducted of 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 · D2022-08-25 · 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 clinical record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#140) was monitored for adverse side effects related to anticoagulant use. The sample size was one resident. The deficient practice could result in delayed identification of adverse side effects. Findings include: Resident #140 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included atherosclerotic heart disease, cardiac heart murmur, and hematuria. The physician's orders revealed several orders for warfarin (an anticoagulant medication). These included: -8/20/22 - 1 milligram (mg) per day every Thursday and Sunday for Venous Thrombolism (VTE) prophylaxis. -8/20/22 - 2 mg per day every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday for VTE prophylaxis. -8/21/22 - 5 mg per day for VTE prophylaxis -8/22/22 - 3 mg per day one time only for low International Normalized Ratio (INR). An anticoagulant therapy care plan, dated 8/22/22, had a goal to be free from discomfort or adverse…
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 · B2022-08-25 · tag F0661 — patternEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
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 complete discharge summaries and post-discharge plans of care were developed for two residents (#40 and #142). The deficient practice could result in necessary information not being communicated at the time of discharge. Findings include: -Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), hyperlipidemia, and dehydration An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated June 28, 2022 for the resident to be discharged to home with home health skilled nursing for medication management and safety evaluation, Physical Therapy (PT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) evaluation and treatment, and home health aide for showers, and social services as needed for discharge. Review of 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.
“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
$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-09-10
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 MATHER SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES — 2 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes:
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 3.0 | -2.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 1 home this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TUCSON MATHER PLAZA LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/26/2003 |
| TUCSON MATHER LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 03/26/2003 |
| TUCSON PLAZA LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 03/26/2003 |
| MANELLA, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/11/2016 |
| ELSTER, MARY BETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/05/2003 |
| MUHLBACH, PETER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/20/2023 |
| PARHAM, MARIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2025 |
| WADLEIGH, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $4.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AZ
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Arizona Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 035273. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-28, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.