2001 North Park Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719 (opens Google Maps) · Pima County · (520) 882-6151· 200 certified beds · avg 150 residents/day · certified since Aug 3, 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: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 1, 2024 · 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: Sep 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 23 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint F-0842
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Aug 22, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 22, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Aug 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 |
| Jun 11, 2025 | 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 11, 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 |
| Aug 1, 2024 | ▲ 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 |
| May 19, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| May 19, 2023 | 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 |
| May 19, 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 |
| May 19, 2023 | 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 |
| May 19, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
| Apr 1, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Apr 1, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 1, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Apr 1, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 1, 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 1, 2022 | 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 |
| Apr 1, 2022 | 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 1, 2022 | 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 |
| Apr 1, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 2).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 7 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $25,116.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 2024 | Fine | $25,116 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 3.47 | 3.97 | 3.95 | bottom 36% in Arizona; bottom 35% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.35 | 0.69 | 0.69 | bottom 9% in Arizona; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.07 | 3.50 | 3.50 | bottom 36% in Arizona; bottom 35% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.19 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 8% in Arizona; bottom 11% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 41.4 | 45.2 | 45.8 | top 33% in Arizona; top 40% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 27.3 | 43.6 | 42.9 | top 18% in Arizona; top 24% 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 3.13, RN 0.31, weekend 2.78.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.13 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Park Avenue Health and Rehabilitation Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/18/2006 |
| Cote, Ellen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/12/2008 |
| Cote, Ellen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/12/2008 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2003 |
| Keetch, Chad | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2011 |
| Peterson, Forrest | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Port, Barry | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/30/2025 |
| Vo, Elise | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/05/2021 |
| Vo, Elise | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/05/2021 |
All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Ensign Group — 342 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 341 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catalina Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 0.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Villa Maria Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 3.5 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Santa Rosa Care Center | 4.1 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| The Center at Tucson | 4.2 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Haven of Tucson | 4.5 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Handmaker Home for the Aging | 4.7 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Foothills Rehabilitation Center | 4.7 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Arizona State Veteran Home-Tucson | 4.7 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation & Care Center | 5.3 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pueblo Springs Rehabilitation Center | 5.3 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sandstone of Tucson Rehab Centre | 5.3 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Casas Adobes Post Acute Rehab Center | 5.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
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 035174.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details