How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Pueblo Springs Rehabilitation Center
5545 East Lee Street, Tucson, AZ 85712 (opens Google Maps) · Pima County · (520) 296-2306· 129 certified beds · avg 93 residents/day · certified since Jan 16, 1981 · 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★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 6, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.40
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: 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. F-0842
View all 21 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 12, 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 |
| Jun 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 6, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Jun 6, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0645 |
| Jun 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 6, 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Jun 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 7, 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 |
| Apr 25, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 25, 2023 | 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 |
| Apr 25, 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 24, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 24, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 24, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 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 24, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 24, 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 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 facilityArizona averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.40
Arizona average: 3.97
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.24
Arizona average: 0.69
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.96
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) | 3.40 | 3.97 | 3.95 | bottom 30% in Arizona; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.24 | 0.69 | 0.69 | bottom 2% in Arizona; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.96 | 3.50 | 3.50 | bottom 27% in Arizona; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.14 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 1% in Arizona; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 58.3 | 45.2 | 45.8 | bottom 16% in Arizona; bottom 19% 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 3.03, RN 0.21, weekend 2.64.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.03 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pueblo Springs Rehabilitation Center. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singh, Jaspreet | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/20/2023 |
| The Ensign Group INC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/13/2017 |
| Barnes, Jacob | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2026 |
| Barnes, Jacob | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2026 |
| Barnes, Jacob | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2026 |
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/13/2017 |
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/23/2017 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/13/2017 |
| Harlan Heights Health Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| Keetch, Chad | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2011 |
| Peterson, Forrest | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| Port, Barry | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/26/2018 |
| Singh, Jaspreet | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/20/2023 |
| Singh, Jaspreet | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2025 |
| Standard Bearer Healthcare Op, LP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| The Ensign Group INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2017 |
All 16 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 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.
- River Park Post Acute — Chandler, AZ · overall 5/5
- Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation & Care Center — Tucson, AZ · overall 4/5
- Santa Rosa Care Center — Tucson, AZ · overall 3/5abuse
- Shea Post Acute Rehabilitation Center — Scottsdale, AZ · overall 5/5
- South Mountain Post Acute — Phoenix, AZ · overall 4/5
- Springdale Village Post Acute — Mesa, AZ · overall 3/5
- Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab — Sun City West, AZ · overall 5/5
- Sunview Respiratory and Rehabilitation — Youngtown, AZ · overall 2/5abuseSFF
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.
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 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 keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "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 monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
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 58% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 16 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation & Care Center | 0.1 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Handmaker Home for the Aging | 0.7 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Sandstone Estates Rehab Centre | 0.7 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Foothills Rehabilitation Center | 0.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Devon Gables Rehabilitation Center | 0.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Santa Rosa Care Center | 1.2 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Haven of Saguaro Valley | 1.6 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Center at Tucson | 1.6 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Villa Maria Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 1.9 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Haven of Tucson | 2.5 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Catalina Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 4.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Park Avenue Health and Rehabilitation Center | 5.3 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.
- Sandstone of Tucson Rehab Centre — Tucson, AZ · overall 2/5abuse
- Skilled Nursing Unit at Oro Valley Hospital — Oro Valley, AZ · overall 5/5
- Splendido at Rancho Vistoso — Tucson, AZ · 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 035068.