1030 Scott Drive, Prescott, AZ 86301 (opens Google Maps) · Yavapai County · (928) 778-2450· 58 certified beds · avg 51 residents/day · certified since May 19, 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 →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: OPCO SKILLED MANAGEMENT (66 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)
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.
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 25, 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: Apr 3, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 37 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 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
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 9, 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 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2026 | 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 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Aug 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| May 6, 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 |
| Mar 25, 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 |
| Mar 25, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Mar 25, 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 |
| Jan 25, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 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 |
| Jan 25, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 25, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 25, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Jan 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · F-0622 |
| Jan 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Oct 6, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Oct 6, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Oct 6, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Oct 6, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Oct 6, 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 |
| Oct 6, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 11).
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 |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 16 | 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 $8,278.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
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) | 3.18 | 3.97 | 3.95 | bottom 16% in Arizona; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.69 | top 43% in Arizona; top 46% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.80 | 3.50 | 3.50 | bottom 19% in Arizona; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.51 | 0.49 | 0.48 | top 34% in Arizona; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 52.2 | 45.2 | 45.8 | bottom 25% in Arizona; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 61.5 | 43.6 | 42.9 | bottom 17% in Arizona; bottom 20% 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 3.27, RN 0.63, weekend 2.89.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.27 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 Prescott Village Nursing & Rehabilitation. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amethyst Az Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 33% | 11/19/2024 |
| Az Healthcare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/19/2024 |
| First Sweetzer Holdings LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Garetz, David | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Hatteras Investments, LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Indigo Az Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 61% | 11/19/2024 |
| Kaplan, Esther | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Kaplan, Mosha | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Sasem Investments LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| 1030 Scott Drive Az, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| Az Realty Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| Continuum Rehab Group LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Dahn, Stephen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Dahn, Stephen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Garetz, David | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Garetz, David | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Gasser, Angela | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Gasser, Angela | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Gurwitz, Solomon | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/23/2025 |
| Hansen Hunter LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
Showing 20 of 29 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 9 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Opco Skilled Management — 66 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 65 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Granite Creek Health & Rehabilitation Center | 0.0 mi | Prescott, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Haven Health Prescott, LLC | 1.2 mi | Prescott, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Mountain View Manor | 3.0 mi | Prescott, AZ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation | 8.3 mi | Prescott Valley, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Yavapai, AZ — 7 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 035158.
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