How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Haven of Tucson
3705 North Swan Road, Tucson, AZ 85718 (opens Google Maps) · Pima County · (520) 299-7088· 118 certified beds · avg 102 residents/day · certified since May 4, 1988 · 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★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 21, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 12, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
2.36
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 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 · Aug 12, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 12, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
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: Sep 3, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 2, 2023 · F-0690
The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 2, 2023 · F-0690
The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Why it matters: Poor continence and catheter care leads to infections, skin breakdown, and loss of dignity.
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: May 10, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 20 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. F-0558
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
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. F-0686
View all 20 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Apr 21, 2026 | 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 21, 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. · F-0686 |
| Apr 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Dec 1, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 12, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Dec 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Dec 20, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · from a complaint · F-0685 |
| Dec 20, 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. · F-0689 |
| Dec 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Dec 20, 2024 | 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 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Sep 3, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| Sep 3, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 2, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Mar 2, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 2, 2023 | 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. · F-0755 |
| Mar 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 4
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 4 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 9 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 4 | 0 | E |
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: 2.36
Arizona average: 3.97
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.42
Arizona average: 0.69
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.09
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) | 2.36 | 3.97 | 3.95 | bottom 1% in Arizona; bottom 2% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.42 | 0.69 | 0.69 | bottom 21% in Arizona; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.09 | 3.50 | 3.50 | bottom 1% in Arizona; bottom 2% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.48 | top 38% in Arizona; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 48.0 | 45.2 | 45.8 | bottom 39% in Arizona; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 50.0 | 43.6 | 42.9 | bottom 39% in Arizona; bottom 39% 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 4.07, RN 0.73, weekend 3.60.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.07 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: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Haven of Tucson. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robertson, Brett | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2015 |
| Samuelian, Robert | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2015 |
| Samuelian, Spencer | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2015 |
| Samuelian, Stephen | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2015 |
| Seastrand, Jason | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2015 |
| West, Christian | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2015 |
| Espinosa, Stephanie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/14/2024 |
| Espinosa, Stephanie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/14/2024 |
| 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 | 11/01/2015 |
| Haven Health Properties LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/26/2024 |
| Haven Tucson Real Estate LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2015 |
| Haven Tucson Real Estate LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/26/2024 |
| Health Group Management LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/21/2024 |
| Health Group Management LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/21/2024 |
| Jatoi, Mansoor | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/15/2023 |
| Jatoi, Mansoor | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/15/2023 |
| Miles, Andrew | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Miles, Andrew | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
Showing 20 of 38 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 18 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 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
- Haven of Camp Verde — Camp Verde, AZ · overall 3/5abuse
- Haven of Cottonwood — Cottonwood, AZ · overall 2/5
- Haven of Douglas — Douglas, AZ · overall 4/5
- Haven of Flagstaff — Flagstaff, AZ · overall 3/5abuse
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.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
- "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?"
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 48% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 38 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 21 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Center at Tucson | 1.1 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Villa Maria Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 1.7 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Foothills Rehabilitation Center | 1.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Handmaker Home for the Aging | 1.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Santa Rosa Care Center | 2.1 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Devon Gables Rehabilitation Center | 2.4 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation & Care Center | 2.4 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sandstone Estates Rehab Centre | 2.5 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Pueblo Springs Rehabilitation Center | 2.5 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Catalina Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 3.7 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Haven of Saguaro Valley | 4.0 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Park Avenue Health and Rehabilitation Center | 4.5 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.
- 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
- Sandstone of Tucson Rehab Centre — Tucson, AZ · overall 2/5abuse
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 035165.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).