Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state rank of #90 out of 139 facilities in Arizona, they fall in the bottom half, and they rank #3 out of 7 in Yavapai County, meaning only two local options are better. The facility’s trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 6 in 2025, suggesting ongoing problems. Staffing is below average with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a concerning turnover rate of 71%, which is much higher than the state average of 48%. Additionally, they have incurred $12,735 in fines, which is higher than 92% of Arizona facilities, indicating potential compliance issues. On a positive note, the facility received a 5 out of 5-star rating for quality measures, showing that some aspects of care may be strong. However, there are serious areas of concern, such as a resident suffering a burn due to inadequate supervision and failure to update care plans for multiple residents, which could lead to unmet medical needs. Furthermore, there have been issues with food safety, as food was not stored properly, which raises concerns about nutrition and health risks. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Arizona
- #90/139
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 71% turnover. Very high, 23 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $12,735 in fines. Higher than 69% of Arizona facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 44 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Arizona. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 31 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
Near Arizona average (3.3)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
25pts above Arizona avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
23 points above Arizona average of 48%
The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
3 deficiencies
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** Number of residents sampled: 21Number of residents cited: 1The facility failed to ensure that one resident (#63) was free from a...
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Number of residents sampled: 21Number of residents cited: 1The facility failed to ensure that abuse policy was implementedBased ...
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** Number of residents sampled: 21Number of residents cited: 1The facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse was reporte...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2025
2 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 observation, interviews, review of clinical record, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervi...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, review of clinical record, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed timel...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical documentation, staff and resident interviews, and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two resident's...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, staff interviews and review of facility policy, the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0608
(Tag F0608)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, clinical record review, facility record review, review of the State Agency database and review of fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 staff interviews, clinical record review, facility record review, review of the State Agency database and review of fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included myocardial infarction, atherosclerotic heart d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation, staff interview, and review of policy, the facility failed to notify on...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure that a care p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#44) w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure Medication ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure there was monit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an advanced directive was ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility documents, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information, staff interview, and the Centers f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, manufacturer directions and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that food was ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2021
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one of 13 sampled re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#35) was infor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, review of facility policy and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · 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, the facility failed to ensure that one resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the provider order included ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure there were no expired ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure infection control st...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a wheelchair me...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility documentation, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that nurse staffing information was posted on a daily basis that included actual hours worked by lic...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $12,735 in fines. Above average for Arizona. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Arizona, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation Staffed?
CMS rates Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 71%, which is 25 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 83%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation?
State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 29 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation?
Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 58 certified beds and approximately 53 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PRESCOTT VALLEY, Arizona.
How Does Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation Compare to Other Arizona Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arizona, Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (71%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Arizona. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation is high. At 71%, the facility is 25 percentage points above the Arizona average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 83%. 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 Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation Ever Fined?
Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation has been fined $12,735 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arizona average of $33,206. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?
Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation 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.