How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Devon Gables Rehabilitation Center
6150 East Grant Road, Tucson, AZ 85712 (opens Google Maps) · Pima County · (520) 296-6181· 312 certified beds · avg 183 residents/day · certified since Nov 8, 1987 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: ATIED ASSOCIATES (12 facilities, chain avg rating 1.8★)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jul 14, 2023
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 10, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.05
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 10, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 10, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jun 25, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
View all 21 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jun 26, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jun 26, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 10, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Oct 25, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Oct 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jul 14, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Apr 29, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Apr 29, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Apr 29, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Apr 29, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Apr 29, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Apr 29, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Apr 29, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Dec 12, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · F-0600 |
| Dec 12, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Dec 12, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Dec 12, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Dec 12, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Dec 12, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Dec 12, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 1).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityArizona averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.05
Arizona average: 3.97
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.57
Arizona average: 0.69
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.73
Arizona average: 3.50
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Arizona avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.05 | 3.97 | 3.95 | top 32% in Arizona; top 37% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.57 | 0.69 | 0.69 | bottom 43% in Arizona; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.73 | 3.50 | 3.50 | top 27% in Arizona; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.48 | top 43% in Arizona; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 28.2 | 45.2 | 45.8 | top 11% in Arizona; top 11% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 30.4 | 43.6 | 42.9 | top 21% in Arizona; top 30% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.64, RN 0.51, weekend 3.35.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.64 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Devon Gables Rehabilitation Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rothner, Daniel | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 7% | 03/06/2012 |
| Rothner, Melissa | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 7% | 03/06/2012 |
| Rothner, Rachel | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 7% | 03/06/2012 |
| Rothner, William | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 40% | 03/06/2012 |
| Friebus, Heather | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2012 |
| Rothner, William | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/06/2012 |
| Zimmerman, Joe | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2012 |
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Atied Associates — 12 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Foothills Rehabilitation Center — Tucson, AZ · overall 2/5
- Bridgeway Senior Living — Bensenville, IL · overall 1/5
- Farmington Village Nrsg — Farmington, IL · overall 2/5
- Oakwood Rehab and Nursing Center — Westmont, IL · overall 1/5abuse
- Prairie Village Healthcare Ctr — Jacksonville, IL · overall 1/5
- Rushville Nursing & Rehab Ctr — Rushville, IL · overall 1/5abuse
- Sheridan Village Nrsg & RHB — Chicago, IL · overall 2/5
- Timber Point Healthcare Center — Camp Point, IL · overall 1/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
- "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 28% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 21 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sandstone Estates Rehab Centre | 0.2 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation & Care Center | 0.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pueblo Springs Rehabilitation Center | 0.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Handmaker Home for the Aging | 1.2 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Foothills Rehabilitation Center | 1.2 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Haven of Saguaro Valley | 1.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Center at Tucson | 1.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Santa Rosa Care Center | 1.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Villa Maria Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 2.3 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Haven of Tucson | 2.4 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Catalina Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 5.3 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Park Avenue Health and Rehabilitation Center | 5.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Pima, AZ — 24 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Haven Health Green Valley, LLC — Green Valley, AZ · overall 5/5
- La Canada Care Center — Tucson, AZ · overall 2/5
- Life Care Center of Tucson — Tucson, AZ · overall 1/5
- Mountain View Care Center — Tucson, AZ · overall 4/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 035145.