How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Silver Hills Health Care Center
3450 N Buffalo Dr, Las Vegas, NV 89129 (opens Google Maps) · Clark County · (702) 952-2273· 155 certified beds · avg 147 residents/day · certified since Oct 21, 1998 · 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: COVENANT CARE (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 20, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.62
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
View all 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 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 |
| Nov 20, 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 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 20, 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 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Aug 20, 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. · F-0842 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 6, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0554 |
| Feb 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 6, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly. · from a complaint · F-0624 |
| Feb 6, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · from a complaint · F-0676 |
| Sep 6, 2024 | 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 |
| Sep 6, 2024 | 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 |
| Sep 6, 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 |
| Sep 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Sep 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Sep 6, 2024 | 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 |
| Jun 14, 2024 | 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 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Jun 14, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Jun 14, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jun 14, 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Sep 29, 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. · F-0689 |
| Sep 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a neutral and fair arbitration process. Arbitration is a way of settling disputes outside of court, and if it's used, the facility must agree with the resident on a neutral arbitrator and a convenient location. · F-0848 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 14
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 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 14 | 0 | F |
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: 3.62
Nevada average: 4.05
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.51
Nevada average: 0.98
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.29
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) | 3.62 | 4.05 | 3.95 | bottom 37% in Nevada; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.51 | 0.98 | 0.69 | bottom 16% in Nevada; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.29 | 3.61 | 3.50 | bottom 38% in Nevada; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.38 | 0.87 | 0.48 | bottom 22% in Nevada; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 71.6 | 45.1 | 45.8 | bottom 3% in Nevada; bottom 5% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 73.3 | 43.4 | 42.9 | bottom 8% in Nevada; 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 3.69, RN 0.52, weekend 3.36.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.69 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: 5/5 · 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 Silver Hills Health Care 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centre Capital Investors V, LP | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (b), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (q), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (s), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Centre V Secondary Fund, L.P. | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Care California, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Care, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Holdco, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Subco, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Evans, Mary | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Levin, Robert | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Sims, Christine | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| State Treasurer of Mich Custodian of Public School Empl RTMNT Systems | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Stockwell Fund II LP | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Torok, Andrew | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Ashley, Dava | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2013 |
| Carney, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2013 |
| Evans, Mary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2013 |
| Hassell, Lance | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/17/2018 |
| Hassell, Lance | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/17/2018 |
Showing 20 of 27 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 7 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Covenant Care — 12 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.
- Silver Ridge Healthcare Center — Las Vegas, NV · overall 4/5
- Buena Vista Care Center — Santa Barbara, CA · overall 2/5
- Camino Ridge Post-Acute — Mountain View, CA · overall 1/5
- Gilroy Healthcare Center — Gilroy, CA · overall 2/5
- Huntington Park Nursing Center — Huntington Park, CA · overall 2/5
- La Jolla Post-Acute — La Jolla, CA · overall 4/5
- Los Altos Post-Acute — Los Altos, CA · overall 3/5
- Pacific Coast Manor — Capitola, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 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.
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What are your rules for bringing in my family member's favorite foods, and how are they stored?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
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 72% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 27 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 36 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neurorestorative | 0.1 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Advanced Health Care of Summerlin | 1.0 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Royal Springs Healthcare and Rehab | 1.4 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Marquis Plaza Regency Post Acute Rehab | 1.7 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| El Jen Skilled Care | 2.3 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Neurorestorative | 2.7 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Las Vegas | 2.9 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Skye Canyon Post Acute | 4.2 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Marquis Care at Centennial Hills | 4.3 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Trellis Centennial | 4.3 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Silver Ridge Healthcare Center | 4.8 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Torrey Pines Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 5.2 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
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.
- Silver State Pediatric Skilled Nursing Facility — Las Vegas, NV · overall 5/5
- Spanish Hills Wellness Suites — Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5
- Sunset Ridge Post Acute — Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5abuse
- The Heights of Summerlin, LLC — Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5
- TLC Care Center — Henderson, NV · overall 1/5SFF
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 295066.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).