Advanced Health Care of Albuquerque
2701 Richmond Drive NE, Albuquerque, NM 87107 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 47 certified beds · (505) 967-4200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- 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 $39,880 in federal fines (most recent 2024-10-21)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.1% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.5% | 86.4% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.2% | 22.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.4% | 15.7% | 12.0% | better |
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.
77.8% 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 1,107 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 529 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 1.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 99% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 77.8%CMS range 75.7–80.3 | 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 10.4–13.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 66.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 64.1% | 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 | 66.2% | 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 | 98.1% | 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 | 98.6% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 2.4% | 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 | 5.8%CMS range 4.3–7.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 47 beds and averages 45.0 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.84 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.05 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.75 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 4.16 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.12 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.12 to 0.88 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-10-21 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician for 1 (R #1) of 3 (R #1, R #2 and R #3) residents when staff did not administer multiple doses of heart medication to R #1 as ordered. If the facility is not notifying the physician of significant medications being missed due to the resident's schedule, then the physician may be unaware of any issues with the resident receiving medication that is important to the resident's wellbeing and recovery. This deficient practice likely contributed to multiple missed doses of heart medication and likely contributed to R #1's death. The findings are: A. Record review of R #1's hospital records, dated 06/04/24, indicated the following: - Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; a type of heart attack), - Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD; involves two or more major arteries and occurs when too much plaque builds up within the arteries, making it harder for blood to circulate to supply oxygen and nutrients to the heart muscle)…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-10-21 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to administer significant medication of plavix and aspirin (plavix and aspirin a medication used to prevent heart attacks and strokes in persons with heart disease, recent stroke, or blood circulation disease. It is also used with aspirin to treat new or worsening chest pain, to keep blood vessels open, and to prevent blood clots after certain procedures, such as cardiac stent.) ordered by the physician for 1 (R #1) of 3 (R #1, #2 and #3 ) residents reviewed for medications. This deficient practice has the potential to jeopardize the resident's health and safety could likely have contributed to R #1's death. The findings are. A. Record review of R #1's hospital records, dated 06/04/24, indicated the following: - Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; a type of heart attack), - Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD; involves two or more major arteries and occurs when too much plaque builds up within the arteries, making it harder for blood to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-10-21 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to provide quality care to 1 (R #1) of 1 (R #1) resident when they failed to properly assess a resident with history of mycardial infarction (heart attack) after the resident began to experience anxiety for a couple hours before transferring the resident to the emergency room. If the facility fails to properly assess a resident with heart issues, then the resident may experience unidentified life-threatening conditions such as a heart attack. This deficient practice likely resulted in unnecessary distress and delay in treatment. The findings are: A. Record review of R #1's hospital records, dated 06/04/24, indicated the following: - Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; a type of heart attack), - Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD; involves two or more major arteries and occurs when too much plaque builds up within the arteries, making it harder for blood to circulate to supply oxygen and nutrients to the heart muscle) status post…
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 · G2023-12-14 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to enter a new wound care order to prevent skin breakdown which resulted in a pressure sore (skin and soft tissue injuries that form as a result of constant or prolonged pressure exerted on the skin) and did not enter in new orders for the treatment of a pressure wound for 2 (R #11 and R #54) of 3 (R #11, R #37 and R #54) residents looked at for wounds. This deficient practice did contribute to resident's decline in condition and resulted in the resident going to the hospital. The findings are: R #11 A. Record review of R #11's face sheet indicated the resident was admitted from the hospital to the facility on [DATE]. She was admitted for pneumonia (lung infection) and sepsis (a serious condition in which the body responds improperly to an infection). Resident also had atrial fibrillation [A-fib; an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm (arhythmia that can lead to blood clots in the heart)], type 2 diabetes mellitus (the body does not use insulin…
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 before2025-03-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions when staff failed to: 1. Label and date all items in the kitchen refrigerator. 2. Cover foods in the refrigerator and the storage room . 3. Remove dented, expired can of olives from the ready-to-use rack. 4. Wear hairnets and beard guards in a manner to cover all their hair while in the kitchen. These deficient practices are likely to affect all residents listed on the resident census provided by the Administrator on 03/27/25. Failure to store food under safe and sanitary conditions could likely to lead to foodborne illnesses in residents. The findings are: Food Storage A. On 03/24/25 at 7:45 am, during an initial walk through the kitchen, observation revealed the following: In the dry storage room: -A large, uncovered plastic container of sliced almonds. -A dented can of sliced ripe olives, expired 12/29/23. -A sweet potato was cut in half, not covered, and very dried out. In the refrigerator and freezer: -Meatballs were not in a sealed container and frost bitten. -A bag of corn and 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 · Ecited before2025-03-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to keep the facility's eye washing stations (EWS, units for washing off chemicals or substances that might have splashed into an individual's eyes before they can seek further medical attention) free from dust, debris, and other microscopic organisms from contaminating the water outlets when staff failed to maintain the protective caps on the spray heads for 2 (EWS #1, EWS #2) of 2 (EWS #1, EWS #2) eye washing stations. This deficient practice is likely to lead to staff being exposed to water that may contain contaminants such as rust, scale, chemicals buildup, and harmful microbes. The findings are: A. Record review of the EWS's manufacturer's guidelines, dated 2023, following: - Periodic cleaning of the eyewash aerators (screens at the end of a faucet. The revealed the devices reduce the amount of water that comes out of a faucet and controls the stream) is advisable to ensure proper water flow. - Keep plastic dust covers on spray heads when the unit is not in use. - The EWS unit, like all emergency eyewash…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-27 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff completed and transmitted a discharge Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS; a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff) 14 days after discharge for 1 (R #39) of 1 (R #39) resident reviewed for MDS assessments. This failed practice could lead to the facility not reporting accurate information to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The findings are: A. Record review of R #39's Face Sheet, undated, revealed the following: - An admission date of 11/14/24. - A discharge date of 12/13/24. B. Record review of R #39's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed the following: - The MDS Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) completed R #39's admission MDS, dated [DATE]. - The MDS LPN did not initiate a discharge MDS. C. On 03/26/25 at 11:27 am, during an interview, the facility's MDS LPN stated she expected the previous MDS LPN, who does not work with them any longer, to complete R #39's discharge MDS. She stated 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 · D2025-03-27 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — isolatedEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 (R #9) of 1 (R #9) resident received a meal at lunch time. This deficient practice could likely cause hunger and weight loss. The findings are: A. On 03/24/25 at 1:00 pm, during observation and interview, staff finished lunch service to the north hall, and the residents ate their lunch. Residents on the north hall were finishing their lunch meals. Further observation revealed R #9 did not have a meal tray on her table. R #9 stated she did not eat lunch yet, because staff did not bring her a meal tray. She stated she would like to eat lunch, because she was hungry. B. On 03/24/25 at 1:05 pm, during an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #6, she stated she thought R #9's tray was on the food cart, but she did not find it on there. She stated she could not find a meal refusal by R #9. C. On 03/24/25 at 1:12 pm, during an observation and interview, CNA #6 brought a lunch meal tray for R #9. CNA #6 stated the kitchen staff stated R #9 marked her meal ticket as she did not want a lunch tray. D. On 03/27/25 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-12-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store foods under sanitary conditions and follow safe food handling practices by not ensuring food items in the walk in freezer were properly labeled and dated. These deficient practices are likely to affect all 47 residents listed on the resident census list provided by the Administrator on 12/11/23 and are likely to lead to foodborne illnesses in residents if food is not being stored properly and safe food handling practices are not adhered to. The findings are: A. On 12/11/23 at 8:34 am, during an initial tour of the kitchen, the following observations were made of the walk-in freezer: - Two (2) boxes of beef steak variety packs, and a package of cage free chicken were not dated. -Several packages of unlabeled vacuum sealed meats and one open package of an unknown meat, stored in a milk crate, were not dated and labeled. -A milk crate was filled with several, sealed packages of unknown rolls or buns and did not have dates and labels. B. On 12/11/23 at 8:38 am, during an observation and interview with the Dietary Manager,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of care for 3 (R #55, R #165, and R #169) of 3 (R #55, R #165, and R #169) residents reviewed for respiratory care by not properly dating and monitoring the oxygen delivery tubing for residents and not dating the humidifier bottle (bottle of water that provides water to the oxygen to prevent the air from being too dry) for residents. This deficient practice has the likelihood of residents developing bacterial and viral infections if the oxygen tubing and humidifiers were not changed as ordered and nursing staff may be unaware as to when the tubing and humidifiers were changed last. A. Record review of R #165's physician's orders revealed the following: -An order with date of 12/08/23 for oxygen per nasal cannula (a device that delivers extra oxygen through a tube and into your nose) to maintain SpO2 (oxygen saturation-a measurement of how much oxygen your blood is carrying as a percentage of the maximum oxygen it could carry) greater than 90%. Document LPM (liters per minute) each…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-14 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview the facility failed to properly store medications in a medication cart by allowing loose medications to be found under the medication cards. This deficient practice has the likelihood to result in all residents that have medications in medication cart #1 that were identified on the census list provided by the administrator on [DATE], to receive expired or improperly temperature-controlled medications that have either lost their potency or effectiveness. The findings are: A. On [DATE] at 8:19 am, during an observation of medication cart #1, loose medications were found under the medication cards (medication stored in vertical cards). Loose medications found under the medication cards included a yellow oval tablet, white capsule, pink capsule, orange capsule, white tablet, and a pink tablet. B. On [DATE] at 8:20 am, during an interview with Registered Nurse #1, she stated loose medications should not be in the medication carts.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to maintain proper infection prevention measures by: 1. Not disinfecting the glucose meter (device to measure sugar in the blood) correctly for medication cart #1. 2. Dragging oxygen tubing on the floor. 3. Not wearing gloves prior to providing nursing care. Failure to adhere to an infection control program could likely cause the spread of infections and illness to all residents of unit 2 listed on the census provided by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 12/11/23. The findings are: A. On 12/11/23 at 12:58, during an observation of a blood glucose check, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was cleaning medication cart #1's glucose meter with alcohol wipes. B. On 12/11/23 at 1:00 pm, during an interview of RN #1, she stated she always cleaned her glucose meter with alcohol wipes. C. On 12/11/23 at 1:05 pm, during an interview of the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated alcohol wipes are not to be used to clean the glucose meter. The DON further stated the only approved wipes used to disinfect (remove viruses and…
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 · E2022-10-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality for 3 (R #'s 99, 100 and 144) of 3 (R #'s 99, 100 and 144) resident's reviewed for skin issues and medications: 1. R #99 for skin issues/pressure sores (sores that occur after prolonged pressure), by not assessing and monitoring a skin blister on R #99's right heel and not informing the attending physician of the new wound and, 2. R #'s 100 and 144, failing to verify patency [condition of being open or unobstructed] by aspiration [drawing back on the line and confirming a swift blood return] of the Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) [a thin tube that's inserted through a vein usually in your arm and passed through to the larger veins near your heart] prior to flushing [pushing fluid into] the PICC. If staff fails to assess for or respond to a residents' signs/symptoms of a potential negative outcome, then the affected resident may likely experience declining health issues and a failure to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-10-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were followed by staff observed for the following infection control practices: 1. staff not doffiing (removing or taking-off an item of clothing) Personal Protective Equipment (protective items or garments worn to protect the body or clothing from hazards that can cause injury and to protect residents from cross-transmission of diseases or germs) gowns prior to exiting a resident's room, 2. not sanitizing hands after removal of gloves 3. contaminated eye protection goggles left for re-use for resident care 4. no sanitizing wipes available at PPE station outside resident's door, 5. no trashbin large enough to contain contaminated gowns and other PPE in resident's room 6. not using proper method to disinfect glucometers [a medical device for determining the approximate concentration of glucose in the blood], between use on residents. These deficient practices could likely affect all residents on quarantines units and those residents who use glucometers by putting them at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-07 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to document in the medical record, for any of the 47 residents listed on the resident census provided by the Administrator on 10/03/22, the physician response to pharmacy recommendations. This deficient practice could likely cause residents to be on unnecessary medications and could likely cause confusion on whether or not the recommendations were seen by the physician and followed up on. The findings are: A. Record review of the physician orders dated 09/21/22 (also the date of admission to the facility for R #85) indicated that Wellbutrin SR (sustained-release) (is used for the treatment of major depressive disorder) 150 milligrams (mg) every 12 hr; three times per day was ordered for R #85. B. Record review of the Medication Administration Record from 09/21/22 to 09/30/22 indicated that R #85 was taking the Wellbutrin SR medication between 6:00 am and 9:00 am, 11:00 am and 1:00 pm and 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. C. Record review of the pharmacy recommendation for R #85 dated 09/21/22 indicated that medications had been reconciled…
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
$39,880 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $17,135 — penalty dated 2024-10-21
- $6,774 — penalty dated 2024-01-30
- $15,971 — penalty dated 2023-12-14
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 ADVANCED HEALTH CARE — 26 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 4.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 4.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 25 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.8★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADVANCED HEALTH CARE - LARRY H MILLER CORPORATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2021 |
| NEW AHC HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2021 |
| THE GAIL MILLER GST TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 72% | since 01/01/2024 |
| THE BRYAN MILLER UTAH DYNASTY TRUST DATED APRIL 22, 2014 | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| THE G&H MILLER UTAH TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2019 | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| OXNAM, NATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| HAZEN, KYLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/09/2026 |
| LHMSH LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| S&S NUTRITION NETWORK INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| HANSEN, RALPH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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 $614K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 NM
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 New Mexico 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 325119. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-27, 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.