How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Marquis Care at Centennial Hills
6351 N Fort Apache Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89149 (opens Google Maps) · Clark County · (702) 515-3000· 120 certified beds · avg 96 residents/day · certified since Nov 9, 2010 · 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: MARQUIS COMPANIES (15 facilities, chain avg rating 4.3★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 27, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.58
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. F-0695
View all 26 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Jun 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint · F-0660 |
| Feb 20, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · from a complaint · F-0694 |
| Jul 26, 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 |
| Jul 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 26, 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 |
| Jul 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 26, 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 |
| Jul 26, 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 |
| Jul 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Jul 26, 2024 | 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 3, 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 |
| Jan 3, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 27, 2023 | 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. · F-0550 |
| Jul 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Jul 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jul 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Jul 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 27, 2023 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 8
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 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 11 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 8 | 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 facilityNevada averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.58
Nevada average: 4.05
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.87
Nevada average: 0.98
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.30
Nevada average: 3.61
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Nevada avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.58 | 4.05 | 3.95 | bottom 35% in Nevada; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.87 | 0.98 | 0.69 | top 48% in Nevada; top 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.30 | 3.61 | 3.50 | bottom 41% in Nevada; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.48 | top 30% in Nevada; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 29.5 | 45.1 | 45.8 | top 10% in Nevada; top 13% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 20.8 | 43.4 | 42.9 | top 7% in Nevada; top 16% 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 4.70, RN 1.14, weekend 4.33.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.70 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · 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 Marquis Care at Centennial Hills. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fogg, Phillip | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 08/16/2010 |
| Marquis Companies I, INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/10/2010 |
| Atwood, Jacob | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/06/2018 |
| Atwood, Jacob | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/06/2018 |
| Fogg, Phillip | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2010 |
| Fogg, Phillip | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2010 |
| Fogg, Steven | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2010 |
| Fogg, Steven | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2010 |
| Sprando, Erin | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/10/2015 |
| Sprando, Erin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/10/2015 |
| Tone, Staci | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2010 |
All 11 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 Marquis Companies — 15 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.
- Marquis Plaza Regency Post Acute Rehab — Las Vegas, NV · overall 4/5
- Marquis Centennial Post Acute Rehab — Portland, OR · overall 5/5
- Marquis Forest Grove Post Acute Rehab — Forest Grove, OR · overall 5/5
- Marquis Hope Village — Canby, OR · overall 4/5
- Marquis Mill Park — Portland, OR · overall 3/5
- Marquis Newberg — Newberg, OR · overall 5/5
- Marquis Oregon City Post Acute Rehab — Oregon City, OR · overall 5/5
- Marquis Piedmont Post Acute Rehab — Portland, OR · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 14 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?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you prepare residents and families for discharge, and what support do you arrange for after they leave?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "Who on your staff manages IV therapy, and what training and monitoring is in place?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Nevada 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 30% 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 32 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trellis Centennial | 0.6 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Skye Canyon Post Acute | 1.2 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Silver Hills Health Care Center | 4.3 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Neurorestorative | 4.4 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Royal Springs Healthcare and Rehab | 4.7 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Advanced Health Care of Summerlin | 5.3 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| El Jen Skilled Care | 5.5 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Marquis Plaza Regency Post Acute Rehab | 5.7 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Neurorestorative | 6.5 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Las Vegas | 7.2 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Heights of Summerlin, LLC | 8.1 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Las Ventanas Retirement Comm SNF | 8.2 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Clark, NV — 42 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Mission Pines Nursing and Rehab Center — North Las Vegas, NV · overall 3/5
- Mountain View Care Center — Boulder City, NV · overall 4/5
- Nevada State Veterans Home - Boulder City — Boulder City, NV · overall 5/5
- North Las Vegas Care Center — North Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5
- Oasis Nursing & Rehab of Green Valley — Henderson, NV · overall 3/5
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 295089.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).