RIVER PARK POST ACUTE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
River Park Post Acute in Chandler, Arizona, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #23 out of 139 nursing homes in Arizona, placing it in the top half, and #19 out of 76 in Maricopa County, meaning only 18 facilities in the area are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from six in 2022 to five in 2025. However, it has a staffing rating of only 2 out of 5 stars and a concerning turnover rate of 67%, which is significantly higher than the state average of 48%. While there have been no fines, which is a positive aspect, the facility has been cited for serious issues, including failing to ensure a safe transfer for a resident, resulting in a major injury, and not testing staff for COVID-19 during an outbreak, which could risk infection spread. Additionally, a resident was not allowed to choose their clothing, potentially impacting their dignity. Overall, while there are strengths in the facility, such as its overall quality measures, the staffing challenges and recent incidents highlight areas needing improvement.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Arizona
- #23/139
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arizona facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arizona. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
21pts above Arizona avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
19 points above Arizona average of 48%
The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to promote and facilita...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the views and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that one of o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pain manageme...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review, facility documentation, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that glucometer controls were consistently completed. The risk could result ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
6 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility documentation, closed clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews, clinical record, review of facility documentation and policy, the facility failed to ens...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure food items available for resident use were properly sealed, marked and dated and were not expired or ou...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on personnel file review, staff, interviews, facility documents and policy and procedures, the facility failed to provide in-service training for two direct care staff (#59 and #40). The deficie...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility documentation, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that three staff members (#1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Arizona.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arizona facilities.
- • 11 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • 67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is River Park Post Acute's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RIVER PARK POST ACUTE an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Arizona, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is River Park Post Acute Staffed?
CMS rates RIVER PARK POST ACUTE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 67%, which is 21 percentage points above the Arizona average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 80%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at River Park Post Acute?
State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at RIVER PARK POST ACUTE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 10 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates River Park Post Acute?
RIVER PARK POST ACUTE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 66 certified beds and approximately 65 residents (about 98% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CHANDLER, Arizona.
How Does River Park Post Acute Compare to Other Arizona Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arizona, RIVER PARK POST ACUTE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (67%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting River Park Post Acute?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is River Park Post Acute Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RIVER PARK POST ACUTE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Arizona. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at River Park Post Acute Stick Around?
Staff turnover at RIVER PARK POST ACUTE is high. At 67%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the Arizona average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 80%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was River Park Post Acute Ever Fined?
RIVER PARK POST ACUTE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is River Park Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?
RIVER PARK POST ACUTE is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.