SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO

13500 NORTH RANCHO VISTOSO BLVD, TUCSON, AZ 85755 (520) 878-2600
For profit - Limited Liability company 42 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
83/100
#29 of 139 in AZ
Last Inspection: March 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Splendido at Rancho Vistoso has earned a Trust Grade of B+, indicating that it is above average and recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #29 out of 139 facilities in Arizona, placing it in the top half, and #5 out of 24 in Pima County, meaning there are only four local options that are better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend in care issues, increasing from 1 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a strength with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 41%, lower than the state average, though RN coverage is average. On the downside, the facility has incurred $8,018 in fines, which is concerning as it is higher than 92% of facilities in Arizona. Recent inspections revealed some serious and concerning incidents, including a resident being transferred without the required two-person assistance, leading to a fall and injury, and the presence of expired medications, which could have posed health risks. Additionally, there were issues with food storage practices that could increase the risk of foodborne illness. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and quality ratings, families should weigh these against the identified risks and recent incidents.

Trust Score
B+
83/100
In Arizona
#29/139
Top 20%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near Arizona's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$8,018 in fines. Higher than 83% of Arizona facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Arizona. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below Arizona average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near Arizona avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $8,018

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Mar 2025 3 deficiencies
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, observations, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that medicatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, observations, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were not left unattended on a bedside table for one of 44 sampled residents(#142).The deficient practice could result in medications not being administered as ordered or another resident/person consuming the medication. Findings include: Resident (#142) was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. An admission Minimum Data Set ( MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated intact cognition. A care plan initiated on March 18, 2025 revealed no evidence of a focus or interventions regarding self-administration of medications. A physician order dated March 18, 2025, revealed the following: -Albuterol Sulfate HFA Inhalation Aerosol Solution 108 (90 Base) MCG/ACT-two puff inhale orally every 4 hours as needed for wheezing -Brimonidine Tartrate Ophthalmic Solution 0.2 % (Brimonidine Tartrate)-Instill 1 drop in both eyes three times a day for glaucoma. Review of clinical records dated March 18, 2025 revealed no evidence of a medication self-administration assessment. During a screening observation or resident #142 conducted on March 25, 2025 at 2:29 p.m., an Albuterol Sulfate Inhaler, Alphagan (Brimoidine Tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.1 %) and a systane ultra PF(preservative free )small sample- were observed on top of the resident ' s bedside table.The resident stated she liked her inhaler right next to her just in case she felt the need for it. She stated that none of the staff commented about the medications being on her bedside table. An interview was conducted on March 27, 2025 at 10:21 AM with the Director Of Nursing ( DON/ Staff # 80) ,who stated if a resident has self-administration medications they would need to be secured in a locked container or locked drawer. The DON stated it is not acceptable to have medication at bedside because of risk of resident administering medication incorrectly or another resident can go into the room and have access to medication. The DON further stated there is not a physician order for self-administration assessment. He stated that staff have been trained and educated on to remove medications at bedside and to verify with providers. Review of a facility policy titled, Medication/Treatment Management dated April, 2004 revealed that Self-administration of medications/treatments is permitted only upon the written order of the primary healthcare provider.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that there were no expired over the counter medications, nutritional supplements and syringes readily available for resident u...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that there were no expired over the counter medications, nutritional supplements and syringes readily available for resident use, the sample size is 38 residents. The deficient practice could result in an increased risk for side effects. Findings include: On March 26, 2025 at 7:51 A.M. an observation of a medication preparation was conducted for Resident # 287 by staff Registered Nurse (RN / staff #122). Aspirin 81 oral tablet delayed release 81 mg was prepared for the resident, the medication was found to have an expiration date of August 2023. The expiration date was brought to the attention of RN / staff #122, who immediately disposed of the medication. The medication was not given to resident #287. A new bottle was retrieved from the medication supply room. Medication was prepared and dispensed without incident for the involved resident. Following the observation conducted on March 26, 2025 at 7:51 A.M., an interview was conducted with RN / staff #122, who stated that the medication was provided by the resident (Resident #287). An observation of the medication store rooms conducted on March 27, 2025 at 8:49 A.M. with Registered Nurse, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON /staff #45) who has been employed for two and a half years, the Central Supply Coordinator and Staffing Coordinator (CS/ staff # 125), joined the review once it was in progress. The medication room, located behind Nurse ' s station # G714, revealed 1 individual serving size container of Boost nutritional supplement, with the expiration date of September 3, 2024, and 1 individual serving size of Activia yogurt expired March 26, 2025, both items were disposed of in the trash can in the medication room. Additionally, the hand sanitizer located in the medication room had expired in January 2025. Housekeeping services were immediately advised and the hand sanitizer was replaced. Covid tests discovered on the counter, past expiration date. Abated by CS/ staff #125, who provided documentation of extension dates for the test kits. An observation of the long term care medication room conducted on March 27, 2025 at 9:40 A.M. accompanied by CS / staff #125 revealed expired syringes. The expired syringes were: 11 insulin syringes, expired October 2024; 20 Tuberculin syringes, expired July 2024; and 1- 10 ml syringe, expired October 2023. CS / staff #125 collected the expired items for disposal. Secondary to the discovery of expired items in the medication rooms,the decision was made to revisit each of the medication carts for Over the Counter (OTC) medication review. A review of the over the counter medications was conducted on March 27, 2025 at 11:28 A.M. All over the counter medications dates were reviewed on cart #1 with Staff RN (RN / staff # 50), there were no observed concerns. 4 loose tablets were discovered in the OTC drawer, RN / staff #250 was unsure what the tablets were, the RN collected the loose tablets and dropped them into the trash. Following an observation conducted on March 25, 2025 at 11:40 A.M. with RN / staff #250, the RN was questioned regarding the process for disposal of medication. The RN would normally dispose of the medications in the pill dissolver, but just tossed them in the trash at this time. The RN reports that central supply is usually responsible for ordering the OTC medication and supplies. The nursing staff is responsible for monitoring quantities of the prescribed medications that are on hand for the medication cart. The ADON and the MDS person do the audits of the medication carts, if there are any findings, they would be reported back to the nursing staff for educational purposes. The RN reviewed her process for giving medications, the RN stated she sanitizes her hands or wears gloves, she checks the orders, then she retrieves the medications, pours them and then gives the medication to the resident. Once the resident takes the medication, she then documents in the Medication Administration Record (MAR). When preparing the medication for the resident, the RN ' s process is to review the 5 rights of medications and looks at the expiration dates. The RN would not give an expired medication if it were discovered, but if a resident was given an expired medication, the nurse would monitor for allergic reaction. A review of the OTC medications was conducted on March 27, 2025 at 12:46 P.M. all OTC expiration dates were reviewed on medication cart #3 with LPN/ staff # 59. The findings include an expired bottle of Tums, documented opened date of bottle was October 1, 2023 and the expiration in February 2025. Additionally, two bottles of prescription medications for resident #14 (Levo thyroxine and Hydrolazine) were located in the OTC drawer. The prescriptions were greater than one year old, but with no expiration date on the bottle. The LPN stated that she would check with the resident for permission to destroy or dispose of the medications, they are considered back up medications that the resident had from home. There are fresh medications packaged in blister packs in the medication cart from the pharmacy. The LPN was interviewed regarding the process for destroying medication, LPN stated there is a destruction jug for prescription medications but is unsure about OTC medications.The LPN stated that she would investigate and advise the surveyor of the policy. The LPN reported back that prescription medications are placed in the destruction jug and the OTC medication can be thrown in the trash. A review of the OTC medications was conducted on March 27, 2025 at 1:40 P.M. all OTC expiration dates were reviewed on the middle medication cart #2 with LPN/ staff # 58. No expired OTC medications were discovered in the middle medication Cart # 2. A review of the OTC medications was conducted on March 27, 2025 at 2:10 P.M. all OTC expiration dates were reviewed on the middle long term care medication cart with LPN/ staff # 58. Two expired tuberculin syringes were discovered in the long term care medication cart, with an expiration date of July 2024. No expired OTC medications were found. Following the discovery made on March 27, 2025 at 2:10 P.M., an interview was conducted with LPN / staff #58 on March 27, 2025 at 2:20 P.M., the LPN stated that she reviews the medication carts on Sunday ' s, when it is usually a little quieter. When expired OTC medications are located, CS #125 is advised. She reports that expired prescription medications are returned to the pharmacy, but OTC medications are destroyed using the drug buster. Regarding the middle medication cart, LPN / staff #58 voiced surprise, she was confident that there were no expired items on the medication cart. LPN indicated that Tb testing supplies are not usually housed on the medication cart, therefore staff would not be looking for it. The LPN asserted that if expired medications were given to a resident, the medication would not be as effective, the provider would need to be advised and the resident would need to be monitored for side effects. The LPN reported that CS/staff #125 is responsible for ordering supplies, employee CS / staff #125 reports to the ADON / staff # 45 and Director of Nursing (DON/staff # 80) On March 27, 2025 at 02:56 P.M. an interview was conducted with CS / staff #125. The staff member ' s expectation is that whoever is receiving a product is verifying the expiration dates and addressing short dates (short dates indicate a rapidly approaching expiration date) so that co-workers will be aware. The employee expressed that she expects to have no expired products on the medication carts or in the medication rooms. She mentions the expiration dates are on the product for a reason and it may lead to ill affect a resident's health in some way and it is not good practice. On March 27, 2025 at 03:15 P.M. , during an interview with DON / staff # 80, the DON proclaimed that he would not expect his staff to use expired products and that any expired products that are located would be disposed of appropriately. His expectations regarding expired products in the facility have not been met. His expectation is that there are no expired products in the facility. He explained the risk of using expired medications / products would depend on what the product was, it would most likely not be as effective. Interview with Center Administrator (CA / staff #35) on March 28, 2025 at 8:10 A.M. CA / staff # 35 stated the expectations for staff members would be that they are reviewing expiration dates before utilizing items for residents and dispose of the product according to professional standards. The CA stated that there may be negative side effects if expired medications or supplies are used on a resident, depending on what the item / product is. Review of the policy entitled Medication/Treatment Management, last revised April 2024, revealed that OTC medications should be disposed of within 1 year of opening regardless of expiration date. Review of the policy entitled Medication Destruction and Medication Supply Destruction for Non-Controlled Medications last revised January 2024 revealed unused, unwanted or non returnable medications should be removed from medication carts and stored in secured storage until destroyed. Options for disposal of prescription drugs may include community medication take back programs, commercially available container and substance that renders medications unusable or mixing medications with undesirable substance, that mixture is placed in a sealable disposable container and then placed into an opaque bag and disposed of in the trash.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews and review of policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure food storage and service were in accordance with professional standards regarding storing of food...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and review of policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure food storage and service were in accordance with professional standards regarding storing of food boxes and staff wearing a bonnet. The deficient practices could increase the risk for foodborne illness. Findings include: An observation on March 25, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. revealed boxes in the refrigerator and freezer on the top shelf. These items were too close to the ceiling. The boxes included: four boxes of spinach, half & half, whipping cream, and broccoli in the refrigerator. In the freezer: cookies, fudge bars, wheat, bakers misc., royal Danish pastries. All the boxes were on the top shelf blocking the sprinkler system. A return observation occurred on March 26, 2025 at 10:40 a.m. The boxes were still stacked on the top shelf in the refrigerator and the freezer. An observation on March 26, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. showed a red line on the wall in the main kitchen area. The line is used to ensure boxes/items are not stacked higher than is appropriate. An observation was conducted on March 26, 2025 at 11:18 a.m. server, staff #101 was wearing a hair covering which did not cover the hair completely. Hair was outside the covering in the front, and hair was outside the covering on both sides of the head. An interview was conducted on March 26, 2025 at 10:40 a.m. with executive chef, staff #231 stated that in the refrigerator-freezer the items cannot interfere with the sprinkler system. He stated that the boxes would interfere with the sprinkler system and would need to be moved. An interview was conducted on March 26, 2025 at 10:45 a.m. with the dietician, staff #214. She confirmed the process is that stored boxes should leave an 18-inch clearance to the ceiling. She also stated boxes should not be stacked higher than 18-inches in both the refrigerator and freezer areas so the sprinkler system would be clear. An interview was conducted on March 27, 2025 at 01:20 p.m. with the administrator, staff #35. Staff #35 discussed her expectations for stacking food on racks in the refrigerator and freezer areas. She stated they could not interfere with the sprinkler system and there should be an 18-inch clearance. An interview was conducted on March 26, 2025 at 11:25 am with chef de cuisine, staff #31 regarding expectation of hair coverings. She stated if the hair isn't completely covered it is not okay. The associated risk includes hair potentially falling out on food. An interview was conducted on March 27, 2025 at 01:20p.m. with the administrator, staff #35. She stated that her expectations are that hair should be completely covered. The risk is hair may be found in food if not covered. A review of the facility policy entitled food storage and refrigeration management with a revision date on March, 2023 revealed that store items on shelves at least six inches (6) above the floor to facilitate air circulation and proper cleaning. There should also be eighteen inches (18 inches) from the top of the storage shelf items to the ceiling. This is a fire safety requirement. A review of the facility policy entitled culinary employee health and personal hygiene revised March, 2024 under hair restraints and jewelry revealed that employee's wear a hair net or bonnet in any food production area so that all hair is completely covered.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency 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, interviews, review of facility policies and the State Agency (SA) complaint tracking system, th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, interviews, review of facility policies and the State Agency (SA) complaint tracking system, the facility failed to use a two-person transfer, as identified by the comprehensive care plan, resulting in the resident #1's fall with injury. The deficient practice could result in increased risk of injury to the resident. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified dementia, degenerative disease of nervous system and repeated falls. A review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a staff assessment for mental status indicating resident #1 had a memory problem with both short-term memory and long-term memory. It was also assessed that resident #1's cognitive skills for daily decision making to be moderately impaired. The same MDS assessment also indicated resident #1 was entirely dependent on staff for assistance or the assistance of 2 or more helpers required with sit to stand and bed-to-chair transfer. The MDS also revealed the resident was receiving hospice care. A review of the physician's orders revealed the following orders; Hoyer lift for transfers only, which was dated March 22, 2024. A review of a comprehensive care plan revealed a focus on the resident's risks of falls due to his use of psychotropic medications and fall risk score. An intervention was initiated on March 25, 2024 that indicated resident #1 was a two person assist with Hoyer lift with transfers. A review of the facility's assessment titled, Assessment Criteria for Safe Resident Handling and Movement, dated July 5, 2024 indicated resident #1 was not weight bearing as they did not have any bilateral upper-extremity strength. The same assessment also indicated resident #1 was a 2-person transfer by staff with a full body lift with full sling. A review of the progress notes for resident #1 revealed an entry dated September 2, 2024 that was created by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/Staff #147). The note revealed that staff #147 was summoned to resident #1's room by another staff member. The note continues to indicate that resident #1 was sitting on the floor with a CNA and that the CNA stated she slid him down to the floor when trying to transfer to (wheelchair). The note indicated that staff #147 and three other staff members assisted the resident into the wheelchair and vitals were taken. A review of another progress note for resident #1 which was dated September 3, 2024 and was created by LPN/Staff #53. The note indicated resident #1 was complaining of pain when he moved in bed and during peri-care. At this time, the resident was assessed and it was noted that there was bruising to the lateral right knee with some swelling. The note indicates that a new order for increased morphine and an x-ray was received. A review of the physician's orders revealed an order for an X-ray to the right knee and hip due to increased pain caused by a fall which was dated September 3, 2024. A review of a third progress note for resident #1, dated September 5, 2024 which was written by Registered Nurse (RN/Staff #138), revealed the results of the x-ray showed a comminuted distal perihardware fracture. The note also indicated that the medical doctor, hospice, and resident #1's spouse was notified of the results. A review of the intake information submitted by the facility to the SA complaint tracking system revealed a facility self-report was made on September 4, 2024 which stated resident #1 was being assisted by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) (referring to staff #26) when resident #1 slid down with (the) CNA to the floor. At the time of the self-report, the facility was still awaiting results of the x-ray. A review of the intake information submitted by an anonymous reporter to the SA complaint tracking system on September 6, 2024 revealed resident #1 had a fall on September 2, 2024 when being transferred by a CNA (staff #26). This is the same event that was identified in the facility self-report. The information also indicated resident #1 complained of pain from the right knee to the right hip and received an x-ray on September 4, 2024. The report indicated the x-ray revealed a fractured right knee. An interview was conducted on September 10, 2024 at 10:30 AM, via phone, with staff #26. Staff #26 indicated that she has received training on resident transfer methods from the facility. Staff #26 also indicated that she usually gets updated resident information during shift change however, she indicated that she does not get a lot of information that she feels she needs. Based on her experience, the shift change report is quick and sometimes they will say to just check in with the nurse on the floor. Staff #26 indicated they were familiar with resident #1 and she indicated that in the past she would use the bear hug (stand pivot transfer) and she was not aware that he was to be using a Hoyer lift for transfers. Staff #26 continued to explain that she was transferring resident #1 by the bear hug and then his legs were giving out and so staff slid the resident down to the floor. Staff #26 indicated resident #1 went down on his right side and she called for a co-worker (staff #57) who was walking by. During the interview, staff #26 had indicated this shift was her first shift back from an extended absence as she had not worked since June of 2024. An interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/Staff #57) on September 10, 2024 at 10:51 AM. Staff #57 explained that she utilizes the [NAME] to identify how a resident is transferred and the facility provides training on transfer methods which includes the gait belt, Hoyer and Saralifts. Staff #57 indicated that updated resident information is shared with her during shift change and for any information that is not provided to her, she will look at the [NAME] for additional information. Staff #57 indicated that on September 2, 2024 she was walking another resident to the dining hall when she passed the room of resident #1 and saw staff #26 with the resident in his room and at that time, she could not see resident #1's position. She indicated that she asked staff #26 if she needed assistance because resident #1 was a Hoyer transfer and staff #26 responded that she did not. Staff #57 indicated that after she had assisted the other resident to the dining room, she walked back down the hallway and at that time staff #26 asked for help. Staff #57 indicated that staff #26 explained that resident #1 did not fall but slid down. Staff #57 then went to retrieve staff #147 and staff #116 (CNA) for assistance. An interview was conducted with staff #116 on September 10, 2024 at 11:18 AM. Staff #116 explained that resident transfer methods are listed on the [NAME] or the shift cheat sheet that she uses. She indicated the cheat sheet has basic resident information on there such as their diagnoses and transfer methods. Staff #116 stated that the cheat sheet is available for all CNAs in a binder at the nurses' station. Staff #116 explained that she was working on September 2, 2024 when staff #147 asked for her help with resident #1 and she observed him in his room with half of his body on the floor. Staff #116 stated that staff #26 told her that the resident did not fall but slid down. Staff #116 revealed the resident was in a lot of pain and was very agitated however the resident did not identify where the pain was. After the fall, 15-minute neuro checks were implemented according to staff #116. A phone call was placed to staff #147 on September 10 at 11:53 AM but was not returned during the course of the investigation. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/Staff #99) on September 10, 2024 at 1:31 PM. Staff #99 indicated that it was his 5th day working at the facility at the time of the interview. When asked how do staff know what type of transfers a resident might need, he explained that the easiest way to get this information was to look at the [NAME] in Point Click Care (electronic health record application). An interview was conducted with the facility's Administrator (ADM/Staff #93) on September 10, 2024 at 1:45 PM. Staff #93 explained that information that is to be relayed between incoming and outgoing staff during shift change should include fall precautions, reviewing the [NAME] together, talking about skin integrity and follow-up items that need to be done. Staff #93 pointed out that they are mostly reviewing the [NAME] together to ensure staff receive the most up-to-date information because resident needs are constantly changing. Staff #93 explained that the interim DON, at the time, was notified that resident #1 had a fall and that the LPN on duty (staff #147) conducted a pain assessment and no injuries were noted at the time. However, the resident was in a lot of pain the next day when hospice saw resident #1 and an order for an x-ray was placed. Staff #93 indicated that she discussed the results of the x-ray, which indicated a fracture, with resident's spouse, son and physician and they had decided against surgery because of his age. When asked if staff met her expectations on how resident #1 is to be transferred, staff #93 stated everyone did it correct except for (staff #26). The situation was avoidable if she had just waited for staff to assist her. A review of a facility policy titled Safe Resident Handling and Movement, last revised on April 2024, indicated that the type of assistance a resident might need for moving and positioning is documented in the resident's record.
Oct 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record, staff interviews and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that medications were...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record, staff interviews and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered as ordered by the physician for 1 resident (#21). This practice could result in decreased deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Findings include: Resident #21 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnose of personal history of transient ischemic attack, cerebral infarction, and cardiac septal defect. A care plan dated April 14, 2023 included that the resident has Cerebral Vascular Accident and history of transient ischemic attack with an intervention of giving medications as ordered by the physician. A physician's order dated June 24, 2023 included Aspirin Oral Tablet Chewable (Aspirin), Give 81 mg by mouth one time a day for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. An observation was conducted on October 19, 2023 at 7:32 AM of a Registered Nurse (RN/staff #32) administering a 81mg enteric coated aspirin to resident #21 An interview was conducted on October 19, 2023 at 10:41 a.m. with the RN (staff #32) who said that she gave him an enteric coated aspirin. She checked the orders and said it should have been a chewable aspirin. She said that was the card that was missing so she just used house supply, but the house supply was enteric coated. An interview conducted on October 20, 2023 at 10:28 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #44) said that her expectation for provider orders is that they be followed. She said that enteric coated aspirin does not meet the order and that the administration did not meet her expectation. A policy titled 6.0 General Dose Preparation and Medication Administration revised January 1, 2013 revealed that facility staff should verify that the medication name and dose are correct.
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 observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that cleaning clothes were stored in accordance with professional standards and that a beard nets were worn by...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that cleaning clothes were stored in accordance with professional standards and that a beard nets were worn by two staff member. The deficient practice could result in placing residents at risk for food-borne illnesses. Findings include: A kitchen observation was conducted on October 17, 2023 at 8:40 AM. The observation revealed a dry cleaning rag on the top shelf of the central food preparation area adjacent to the plating area. Two additional rags were observed on a shelf above the sink in the main kitchen area, directly on top of a sealed bag of pita pocket bread. The executive chef took pictures of each identified rag and its placement. An interview was conducted immediately thereafter with the executive chef, staff #110, who stated that the expectation was the cleaning rags are to be stored underneath the counters and not on food preparation or storage areas. He stated that the risk could include a potential for infection or foodborne illness. A kitchen observation was conducted on October 17, 2023 at 8:50 AM. Staff #90, cook and executive chef, staff #110, were both observed without a beard net in the kitchen area. Staff #110 had approximately 2 centimeters of facial hair present; whereas staff #90 had a full-grown beard approximately 6 centimeters in length. Both staff members were observed in the kitchen and neither had a beard net in place at the time. An interview was conducted on October 17, 2023 at 8:55 AM, with staff #110, executive chef. Staff #110 stated he understood that staff #90 should have been wearing a beard net; however, he stated that he was under the impression that he (staff #110) did not require a beard net because his beard was relatively short. He stated that he understood that the risk still existed for hair to fall into the food regardless of the length of the beard. A kitchen observation was conducted on October 18, 2023 at 10:47 AM. A stained cleaning rag was observed on the food preparation counter. The rag was observed for approximately 5 minutes while staff continued to walk past it. No one removed it. When the sous chef, staff #31 was asked about the cleaning rag, she stated that the rag should not be there and removed it. She stated it was left there earlier when she was transferring a hot tray. An interview was conducted on October 19, 2023 with server, staff #67, who stated that the expectation is that hair nets and beard nets are to be worn anytime that staff are in the kitchen. An interview was conducted on October 19, 2023 at 12:30 PM, with both the executive chef, staff #110 and sous chef, staff #31. Both stated that the expectation is that beard nets are worn when facial hair is present and that cleaning rags, either dry or wet, not be stored on food preparation or storage surfaces. An interview was conducted on October 19, 2023 at 12:42 PM, with the administrator, staff #121. Staff #121 stated that the expectations are that sanitary practices should be conducted properly and following procedures regarding the placement of cleaning rags. She stated that not storing the rags accordingly could result in an infection control risk. She further stated that both hair and beard nets are to be worn at all times in the kitchen. She stated that the risk could include getting hair into the food that is being served to residents and staff. A review of facility kitchen and cleaning related policies revealed the presence of the following policies: cleaning dishes/ dish machine, cleaning and sanitizing the dining room, food storage and refrigeration management policy, culinary experience center safety-noting that culinary team members receive routine training on safety topics, kitchen equipment cleaning and sanitizing, and food temperatures; however, none of these policies showed evidence that of the hair or beard net requirements. Additionally, the food storage and refrigeration management policy, revised March 2023, revealed that food, chemicals and supplies should be stored in a manner that protects quality and the safety of food.
Aug 2022 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one resident's (#23) call light and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one resident's (#23) call light and water was accessible. The deficient practice could result in residents' needs not being met. Findings include: Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included muscle weakness and anxiety disorder. Review of the resident's fall care plan, revised on April 21, 2022, revealed the resident was at risk for falls due to being a new admission. Interventions included to keep the call light within reach when the resident is in her room, keep personal items within reach, and provide routine rounds to address the resident's needs. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated July 26, 2022, revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 3, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The assessment included the resident needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, toilet use, and personal hygiene. An observation was conducted of the resident in her room on August 23, 2022 at 9:20 a.m. The resident was lying in her bed. At this time, the resident's call light was observed on the floor behind the head of the bed. The bedside table that had the resident's water on it was located by the window, approximately 6 feet from the resident. Further observations of the resident were conducted on August 24, 2022 at 7:58 a.m., and at 12:25 p.m. The resident was in bed during the observations. During both observations, the resident's call light was draped on top of a night stand located approximately 3-4 feet away from the resident's bed. The call light button was approximately 6 inches from the floor. The bedside table that had the resident's water was located by the window approximately 6 feet away from the resident. An interview was conducted on August 25, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. with a Registered Nurse (RN/staff #97) who stated the call bell must be within reach of the resident. He said that there is a clip on each call light to clip it to the bed so that it does not fall down. He stated the bedside table should also be within reach so the resident can have access to their water and other personal things. He stated he conducted purposeful rounds frequently to ensure those items are available to the residents. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #5) on August 25, 2022 at 9:41 a.m. She stated that her expectation regarding call lights and bedside tables/water includes that these items must be within the reach of the residents. She stated the nursing staff does purposeful rounding which includes checking items such as the call light and water. She stated her expectation is for purposeful rounding to occur every hour, but no less than two hours.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#140) wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#140) was monitored for adverse side effects related to anticoagulant use. The sample size was one resident. The deficient practice could result in delayed identification of adverse side effects. Findings include: Resident #140 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included atherosclerotic heart disease, cardiac heart murmur, and hematuria. The physician's orders revealed several orders for warfarin (an anticoagulant medication). These included: -8/20/22 - 1 milligram (mg) per day every Thursday and Sunday for Venous Thrombolism (VTE) prophylaxis. -8/20/22 - 2 mg per day every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday for VTE prophylaxis. -8/21/22 - 5 mg per day for VTE prophylaxis -8/22/22 - 3 mg per day one time only for low International Normalized Ratio (INR). An anticoagulant therapy care plan, dated 8/22/22, had a goal to be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to anticoagulant use. Interventions included to monitor/document/report to medical doctor as needed any signs or symptoms of anticoagulant complications, including blood-tinged or frank blood in urine, black tarry stools, and sudden severe headaches. Review of the August 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed medications were administered in accordance with the physician's orders. Review of the clinical record did not revealed evidence that monitoring for adverse side effects related to anticoagulant use had been implemented. On 8/25/22 at 9:30 a.m. an interview was conducted with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #26). She stated that adverse side effects are monitored in the nursing notes. She stated that if adverse side effects were not documented in the nursing notes, that means the resident is not having any. She stated that she would not monitor adverse side effects in the MAR or the Treatment Administration Record (TAR). She stated that the progress notes must include whether or not the resident was showing any signs or symptoms of bleeding, etc., in addition to documentation regarding every current diagnosis. An interview was conducted on 8/25/22 at 10:09 a.m. with the DON (staff #5). She stated that an anticoagulant should be care planned and that monitoring for adverse side effects/bleeding should be implemented. She stated that this will assist the provider in monitoring the resident's medications. The facility's medication and treatment management policy, revised October 2020, outlined requirements for medication and treatment management in the licensed care facility. It included that if a resident begins to exhibit signs and symptoms of an unanticipated response or potential side effects or adverse effects of the drugs prescribed, the nurse should contact the resident's physician to report the observed signed and symptoms.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to monitor target behaviors and adv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to monitor target behaviors and adverse effects for three residents receiving pyschotropic medications (#1, #17, and #7). The sample size was five residents. The deficient practice could result in residents receiving psychotropic medications without adequate monitoring. Findings include: -Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the resident's psychotropic medication care plan, revised May 24, 2022 revealed the resident was taking psychotropic medications related to depression, anxiety, and hallucinations. The care plan noted the resident struggles with loss of independence and continual physical decline. Interventions included monitoring for adverse effects, and monitor/record occurrence of target behavior symptoms and document per facility policy. Review of June 2022 recapitulation of physician's orders revealed the following psychotropic medication orders: -Duloxetine (an antidepressant medication) delayed release 30 milligrams (mg) daily for major depressive disorder -Lorazepam (an anti-anxiety medication) 0.5 mg daily for anxiety disorder -Nuplazid (an antipsychotic medication) 34 mg at bedtime for hallucinations -Mirtazapine (an antidepressant medication) 15 mg at bedtime The Medication Administration Records (MARs) for June, July, and August of 2022 revealed the medications were administered as ordered. Review of the quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated August 10, 2022, revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The primary medical diagnoses included depression and generalized anxiety disorder. The assessment included the resident had received antipsychotic, anti-anxiety, and antidepressant medications daily during the 7-day look-back period. Review of the clinical record revealed no evidence that the target behaviors and adverse effects were monitored for the psychotropic medications. -Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with Lewy bodies, generalized anxiety, unspecified psychosis, major depressive disorder, and dementia with behavioral disturbances. Review of the resident's psychotropic medication care plan, revised July 13, 2021, revealed the resident was taking a psychotropic medication for depression. The goal included the resident would have minimal or no signs and symptoms of depression. Interventions included administering medication per orders, monitoring and documenting behaviors every shift, and monitoring and reporting to nurse/physician signs and symptoms of adverse side effects from medication. Review of June 2022 recapitulation of physician's orders revealed an order for sertraline (an antidepressant medication) 50 mg by mouth in the morning for depression. There was no mention of a target behavior and no further orders regarding monitoring behaviors and for adverse effects. Review of the June 2022 MAR revealed the resident received the sertraline as ordered. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment, dated July 1 2022, revealed a BIMS score of 2 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The assessment included resident's primary condition of Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, psychotic disorder, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances, and dementia with Lewy bodies. The assessment included that the resident received an antidepressant medication for 5 days during the 7-day look-back period. Review of a monthly medication regimen review dated July 31, 2022 revealed that the pharmacist noted the resident had been on sertraline since July 2021 and that no behaviors have been documented as observed this month. The review noted that a possible gradual dose reduction should be considered, if appropriate. Review of the July and August 2022 MAR revealed the resident received the sertraline as ordered. Review of the clinical record revealed no evidence that monitoring for a target behavior or for adverse effects was completed for the psychotropic medication. An interview was conducted on August 25, 2022 with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #5). She stated that an order for psychotropic medications must include the dose and the diagnosis with a target behavior. She said that there should be a separate order for monitoring the target behavior and adverse effects which will be documented in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR). She reviewed both residents' (#1 and #17) clinical records and said that monitoring for psychotropic drugs was not in the records. She said her expectation is that documentation of adverse effects and monitoring the target behavior be completed and documented in the clinical record. -Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. A psychotropic medication care plan, dated October 14, 2020, related to anxiety and depression had a goal to have no adverse effects from the medications. Interventions included to monitor and document behaviors every shift. Review of the June 2022 recapitulation of physician's orders revealed the following psychotropic medication orders: -Sertraline (an antidepressant medication) 50 mg per day for depression. The order did not include an associated target behavior. -Lorazepam (an antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg at bedtime for anxiety as evidenced by tongue rolling. Review of the June through August 2022 MARs revealed that psychotropic medications were administered in accordance with the physician's orders. Review of the clinical record revealed no evidence that target behaviors or potential adverse side effects were being monitored for the sertraline or the lorazepam. An interview was conducted on August 25, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. with a Registered Nurse (RN/staff #97). The RN stated the process of writing an order for psychotropic medications included the name of medication, route, frequency, diagnosis, and the target behavior which was specified by the ordering physician. The RN stated a separate order to monitor the target behavior is added and it will be documented on the MAR every shift. The RN stated that they do monitor for adverse effects and this information is documented in the nursing notes. On August 25, 2022 at 9:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #26). She stated that behavior monitoring is included on the TAR. She stated that when a resident is on a psychotropic medication the order must include a target behavior, specific to the resident, to monitor. She stated that way, she would know whether or not the medication was working. An interview was conducted on August 25, 2022 at 10:09 a.m. with the DON (staff #5). She stated that psychotropic medication orders are required to have target behaviors that must be monitored. She stated that her expectation was that behavioral monitoring and adverse side effects monitoring will be completed and documented. She stated that she expected a target behavior would be associated with each psychotropic medication so that they would be able to identify whether or not the medication was working. The facility's psychotropic medication management policy, dated December 2021, revealed that psychotropic medications are not given for the purposes of convenience or discipline and that are not required to treat a resident's medical condition or symptom. The process included that target behavioral expression, for which the medication has been prescribed, is documented in the care plan and the behavior monitoring record. The policy also included that ongoing clinical monitoring of side effects may be required for residents on psychotropic medications.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure that complete discharge ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure that complete discharge summaries and post-discharge plans of care were developed for two residents (#40 and #142). The deficient practice could result in necessary information not being communicated at the time of discharge. Findings include: -Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), hyperlipidemia, and dehydration An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the physician orders revealed an order dated June 28, 2022 for the resident to be discharged to home with home health skilled nursing for medication management and safety evaluation, Physical Therapy (PT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) evaluation and treatment, and home health aide for showers, and social services as needed for discharge. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence of any progress notes related to the resident's discharge. A Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed a recapitulation of the resident's stay which indicated that the resident's admission had been due to a needed respite after a hospital stay. The recapitulation did not include what type, frequency, or duration of services had been provided to the resident during her stay, or a final summary of the resident's status upon discharge. The summary included that the resident would be getting outpatient therapy after discharge, but no specific information regarding this was included in the summary. The discharge summary was not signed by the resident or the resident's representative. Review of the clinical record revealed no evidence that a post-discharge plan of care had been created. -Resident #142 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified fracture of the sacrum, unspecified fracture of left ilium, and unspecified fracture of left pubis. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident scored 15 on the BIMS assessment, indicating intact cognition. In addition, the assessment indicated the resident required limited one-person physical assistance with most Activities of Daily Living (ADL). A short-stay duration care plan dated August 18, 2022 noted discharge within 90 days and had a goal for a safe discharge. An intervention included social services to involve appropriate community resources for follow-up to ensure resident safety. An Interdisciplinary team meeting/care conference progress note dated August 18, 2022 included a projected discharge date of August 24, 2022. A physician's order dated August 23, 2022 included for discharge home on August 24, 2022 with home health skilled nursing for medication management and safety evaluation, PT/OT evaluation and treatment, and a home health aide for showers. A Discharge summary, dated [DATE] revealed a recapitulation of the resident's stay indicating that the resident was in the facility due to a right hip and right pelvic pain. The recapitulation did not include what type, frequency, or duration of services had been provided to the resident during her stay, or a final summary of the resident's status upon discharge. The summary included that the resident would return home with a home health agency, however, contact information for the agency was not included in the documentation. Home health nurse aide and home health therapy were listed in the discharge home services, but no description of services or contact information was included on the summary. According to the discharge planning review, the resident's home had not been evaluated by PT/OT to determine the safety of the environment, and the documentation gave no indication of whether or not the resident had follow up appointments scheduled. The resident signed the summary. A nursing note dated August 24, 2022 at 11:47 a.m. included that the resident was discharged to home at 11:50 a.m. The resident ambulated using a walker which had been brought from home, she was instructed to follow up with her primary care provider in 7-10 days, and her condition was stable with no complaints of pain. An interview was conducted on August 25, 2022 at 8:17 a.m. with the social services director (staff #106). She stated that the process for discharging a resident included starting a discharge summary about a week before the projected discharge. She stated that the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) will complete the form as well as sign it. She said that the resident and/or the resident's representative will also sign it and will be given a copy of it upon discharge. She said that the summary includes any services to be provided after discharge such as home health, outpatient services, any equipment required, the medications/prescriptions that were given to the resident, an overview of the level of function they are at, and a head-to-toe assessment. She reviewed resident #142's clinical record and said that it did not include the therapy services which were provided to the resident during her stay She stated that the recapitulation of stay was not complete. She stated that complete documentation would be important for insurance purposes, so the resident would know what services they were offered and provided, and so that the facility would know what services were provided. She stated that she did not know what a post-discharge plan of care was. On August 25, 2022 at 10:09 a.m. an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #5). She stated that a discharge summary should include a general overview of care (i.e., therapy provided, services the resident received). She stated that it would be important to provide information to the resident and family. She stated that the post-discharge plan of care would include services/doctor appointments to follow up with, and that they would vary from person to person. She stated that she thought the status of the resident would be summarized upon discharge. The facility's discharge planning policy, revised October 2021, included that adequate discharge planning helps ensure continuity of care for the resident and appropriate and timely post-discharge care. The policy included that the facility develops and implements an effective discharge planning process that focuses on the resident's discharge goals, the preparation of residents to be active partners and effectively transition them to post-discharge care, and the reduction of factors leading to preventable readmissions. The policy included that the post-discharge plan of care should include any arrangements that have been made for the resident's follow up care and any post-discharge medical and non-medical services. In addition, discharged residents are provided with a written post-discharge care plan, using community designated forms, which will assist them in adjusting to their new living arrangement. The discharge form is reviewed with the resident and/or the resident representative who should be provided with the names and numbers of referral agencies. The discharge summary may include, but is not limited to, diagnoses, course of treatment or therapy, pertinent consultation results, and a notation from the physician that the resident no longer requires skilled nursing services. The policy included to involve the resident and resident representative in the development of the discharge plan and inform the resident and resident representative of the final plan.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (83/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Arizona.
  • • 41% turnover. Below Arizona's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Splendido At Rancho Vistoso's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO 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 Splendido At Rancho Vistoso Staffed?

CMS rates SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Arizona average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Splendido At Rancho Vistoso?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 8 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 Splendido At Rancho Vistoso?

SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 42 certified beds and approximately 35 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in TUCSON, Arizona.

How Does Splendido At Rancho Vistoso Compare to Other Arizona Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arizona, SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Splendido At Rancho Vistoso?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Splendido At Rancho Vistoso Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO 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 Splendido At Rancho Vistoso Stick Around?

SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO has a staff turnover rate of 41%, which is about average for Arizona nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Splendido At Rancho Vistoso Ever Fined?

SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO has been fined $8,018 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arizona average of $33,159. 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 Splendido At Rancho Vistoso on Any Federal Watch List?

SPLENDIDO AT RANCHO VISTOSO 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.