How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Haven of Scottsdale
3293 North Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale, AZ 85251 (opens Google Maps) · Maricopa County · (480) 947-7443· 56 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Nov 16, 1978 · 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 →
Part of chain: HAVEN HEALTH (20 facilities, chain avg rating 2.7★)
1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 7, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 7, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.09
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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
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 · Jan 7, 2026 · F-0689
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 · Jan 7, 2026 · F-0689
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: Feb 13, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint F-0607
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint F-0609
View all 24 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2026 | ▲ 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. · F-0689 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint · F-0628 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Nov 5, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Nov 20, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Oct 10, 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. · F-0600 |
| Oct 10, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Oct 10, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Oct 10, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| Oct 10, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Oct 10, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Oct 10, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Jun 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint · F-0585 |
| Nov 28, 2023 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 12 | 1 | G ▲ |
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: 3.09
Arizona average: 3.97
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.60
Arizona average: 0.69
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.54
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) | 3.09 | 3.97 | 3.95 | bottom 11% in Arizona; bottom 17% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.60 | 0.69 | 0.69 | top 48% in Arizona; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.54 | 3.50 | 3.50 | bottom 6% in Arizona; bottom 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 47% in Arizona; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 76.9 | 45.2 | 45.8 | bottom 1% in Arizona; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 75.0 | 43.6 | 42.9 | bottom 7% in Arizona; bottom 9% 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 3.14, RN 0.61, weekend 2.58.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.14 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Haven of Scottsdale. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haven Health Group LLC | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2016 |
| Seastrand, Jason | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2016 |
| Dixon, Eric | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/15/2025 |
| Dixon, Eric | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/15/2025 |
| Fragoso, Lindsay | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/10/2021 |
| Fragoso, Lindsay | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/10/2021 |
| Haven Health Properties LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2016 |
| Haven Health Properties LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/25/2024 |
| Haven Scottsdale Real Estate LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2016 |
| Haven Scottsdale Real Estate LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/26/2024 |
| Health Group Management LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/25/2024 |
| Health Group Management LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/25/2024 |
| Longhurst, Stock | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2020 |
| Longhurst, Stock | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2020 |
| Muir, Mark | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/15/2015 |
| Muir, Mark | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/15/2015 |
| Murphy, Nicole | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2023 |
| Murphy, Nicole | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2023 |
| Robertson, Brett | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2016 |
| Robertson, Brett | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2016 |
Showing 20 of 32 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 12 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Haven Health — 20 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.
- Haven of Sedona — Sedona, AZ · overall 2/5abuseSFF
- Haven of Show Low — Show Low, AZ · overall 2/5
- Haven of Sierra Vista, LLC — Sierra Vista, AZ · overall 2/5abuse
- Haven of Tucson — Tucson, AZ · overall 2/5
- Haven of Yuma — Yuma, AZ · overall 3/5
- Haven Health Green Valley, LLC — Green Valley, AZ · overall 5/5
- Haven Health Prescott, LLC — Prescott, AZ · overall 4/5
- Haven Health Sky Harbor, LLC — Phoenix, AZ · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 19 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?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Arizona midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 77% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 32 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 60 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Osborn Health and Rehabilitation | 0.0 mi | Scottsdale, AZ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Heritage Court Post Acute of Scottsdale | 0.1 mi | Scottsdale, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Rehab at Scottsdale Village Square | 0.8 mi | Scottsdale, AZ | —/5 | abuseSFF | |
| Plaza Healthcare | 1.9 mi | Scottsdale, AZ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Mirabella at Asu | 4.5 mi | Tempe, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Desert Haven Care Center | 5.8 mi | Phoenix, AZ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Sandridge Post Acute | 5.8 mi | Mesa, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Desert Terrace Healthcare Center | 6.4 mi | Phoenix, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Advance Health Care of Scottsdale | 6.7 mi | Scottsdale, AZ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Friendship Village of Tempe | 6.8 mi | Tempe, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Scottsdale | 7.2 mi | Scottsdale, AZ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Haven Health Sky Harbor, LLC | 7.3 mi | Phoenix, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Maricopa, AZ — 77 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Horizon Post Acute and Rehabilitation Center — Glendale, AZ · overall 3/5abuse
- Immanuel Campus of Care — Peoria, AZ · overall 3/5abuse
- Lake Pleasant Post Acute Rehabilitation Center — Peoria, AZ · overall 4/5
- Life Care Center of North Glendale — Glendale, AZ · overall 5/5
- Life Care Center of Paradise Valley — Phoenix, AZ · overall 3/5abuse
- Maryland Gardens Post Acute — Phoenix, AZ · overall 3/5abuse
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 035059.