ArizonaTucson

Santa Rosa Care Center

1650 North Santa Rosa Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85712 · Pima County · 144 certified beds · avg 120 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1980

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)

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.

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.25
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 9, 2023 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.

Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Sep 12, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (28)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 20, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 31, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Aug 29, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Aug 29, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 29, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 29, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Aug 29, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Aug 29, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Feb 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 18, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Nov 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Nov 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 27, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 27, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Oct 27, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 27, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Oct 27, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Oct 27, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 9, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Sep 1, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Sep 1, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 1, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 1, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Sep 1, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (6 → 6).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202250E
202371G ▲
202460E
202590E
202610D

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityArizona avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.253.973.95top 26% in Arizona; top 30% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.390.690.69bottom 12% in Arizona; bottom 21% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.683.503.50top 29% in Arizona; top 34% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.230.490.48bottom 13% in Arizona; bottom 17% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)58.245.245.8bottom 17% in Arizona; bottom 19% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)84.643.642.9bottom 2% in Arizona; bottom 3% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.35, RN 0.31, weekend 2.90. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company · changed ownership in the last 12 months

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Burnam, SoonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/09/2025
Ensign Services INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/09/2025
Jones, ChristineIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/09/2025
Keetch, ChadIndividualIndividual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/03/2026
Peterson, ForrestIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/09/2025
Port, BarryIndividualIndividual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/26/2025
Rowe, ChristopherIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2025
Rowe, ChristopherIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2025
Santa Rosa Propco, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2025
Sato, AmiIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/09/2025
Singh, HarbirIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2025
Singh, HarbirIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2025

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Handmaker Home for the Aging0.7 miTucson, AZ★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Foothills Rehabilitation Center0.7 miTucson, AZ★★☆☆☆1/5
Villa Maria Post Acute and Rehabilitation0.8 miTucson, AZ★★★☆☆2/5
The Center at Tucson1.1 miTucson, AZ★★★★★5/5
Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation & Care Center1.2 miTucson, AZ★★★★☆3/5
Pueblo Springs Rehabilitation Center1.2 miTucson, AZ★★☆☆☆3/5
Sandstone Estates Rehab Centre1.8 miTucson, AZ★☆☆☆☆1/5
Devon Gables Rehabilitation Center1.8 miTucson, AZ★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Haven of Tucson2.1 miTucson, AZ★★☆☆☆2/5
Haven of Saguaro Valley2.6 miTucson, AZ★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Tucson →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 035004.