Aztec Healthcare
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Aztec Healthcare in Aztec, New Mexico, has a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns regarding resident care. It ranks #54 out of 67 facilities in the state and #6 out of 6 in San Juan County, placing it in the bottom half overall. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 11 in 2024. Staffing is rated poorly with a 1/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 59%, which is around the state average. Additionally, the facility has incurred $136,098 in fines, higher than 91% of New Mexico facilities, indicating serious compliance issues. There is average RN coverage, which means nurses are present to manage care, but the quality of care is still concerning. Specific incidents include a failure to notify a physician about critical test results for a resident, leading to delayed treatment and contributing to that resident's death. Another incident involved emotional and physical abuse, where staff did not remove a deceased resident's body in a timely manner, causing distress to other residents. Overall, while there are some staffing resources, the facility is struggling significantly with compliance and quality of care.
- Trust Score
- F
- In New Mexico
- #54/67
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $136,098 in fines. Lower than most New Mexico facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New Mexico. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 33 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-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
Below New Mexico average (2.9)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
13pts above New Mexico avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
11 points above New Mexico average of 48%
The Ugly 33 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
2 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** PAST NOT COMPLIANCE
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician, for 1 (R #7) of 1 (R #7) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** PAST NON-COMPLIANCE
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician, for 1 (R #7) of 1 (R #7) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
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 F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assist 1 (R #3) out of 3 (R #1, 2 and 3) residents reviewed for act...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to keep residents free from abuse for 4 (R #27, R #28, R #56 and R #134...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to have the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT; a facility team composed of various professionals who review and determine resident needs a...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive, person-centered plan which included inform...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 multiple residents
Resident #45
E. Record review of the health facility incident report, dated 04/15/24, showed the facility reported an incident to the SA regarding CNA #2 and R #45, but they did not submit the 5 day f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality for any of the residents who resided on 100, 200 hallways.This deficient practice could cause any of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to keep residents free from accidents for 2 (R #14 and R ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
2 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
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to create an accurate Baseline Care Plan (minimum healthcare informati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide proper infection control practices when staff failed to ensure collection bags are kept off the floor for 2 (R #1 and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
6 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents received necessary treatment and service to p...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to create an accurate Baseline Care Plan within 48 hours of admission ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Findings for R #35
D. Record review of R #35's face sheet revealed R #35 has the following diagnoses: quadriplegia, C1-C4 incomp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the proper dose of medication was administered for 1 (R #23) of 10 (R #23,11, 62, 40,31,60,45,24,15,54) residents revi...
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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the medical record was accurate for 1( R #16) of 3 (R #...
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
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to distribute food under sanitary conditions by not transporting resident meals, covered, when serving meals to residents in their rooms. This d...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2022
16 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 observation and interview, the facility failed to promote care with dignity and respect for 7 (R #19, 22 ,23 ,25, 31, 3...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to have the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) (a facility team co...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment accurately reflects the current status of the residents for 1 (R #78) of 3 (R #76, 77, an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that 1 (R #48) of 3 (R # 35, 48, and 56) residents reviewed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide a mechanically altered diet as ordered by a Physician for 1 (R #43) residents of 1 (R #43) residents reviewed during ra...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to promote resident self determination through support of resident cho...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed:
1. Ensure that the New Mexico Medical Orders For Scope of Treatment (N...
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 observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of care for 3 (R #39, 43, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide ADL (activities of daily living) assistance for baths/showe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to assure that 5 (R #12, 15, 24, 57 and 58) of 5 (R #12, 15, 24, 57 and 58) resident's medical chart and medication regimen was reviewed each m...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation and interview the facility failed to
1. Ensure that medications in the medication cart were not expired
2. Ensure that all medication is properly labeled and stored.
3. Refriger...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0800
(Tag F0800)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that safe serving temperatures were maintained by not:
1. Recording food temperatures prior to meal service,.
2. Havin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the nutritional needs and preferences were met for all 76 residents listed on the facility census provided by the Dire...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store and serve food under sanitary conditions by not:
1. Ensuring bo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain proper infection prevention measures by:
1. Staff failing to wear surgical face masks (a loose-fitting, disposable device that creat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "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, 2 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $136,098 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 33 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $136,098 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Mexico. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Aztec Healthcare's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Aztec Healthcare an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within New Mexico, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Aztec Healthcare Staffed?
CMS rates Aztec Healthcare's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 59%, which is 13 percentage points above the New Mexico average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Aztec Healthcare?
State health inspectors documented 33 deficiencies at Aztec Healthcare during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 29 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Aztec Healthcare?
Aztec Healthcare 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 OPCO SKILLED MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 112 certified beds and approximately 81 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Aztec, New Mexico.
How Does Aztec Healthcare Compare to Other New Mexico Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Mexico, Aztec Healthcare's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (59%) 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 Aztec Healthcare?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Aztec Healthcare Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Aztec Healthcare has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Mexico. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Aztec Healthcare Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Aztec Healthcare is high. At 59%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the New Mexico average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 56%. 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 Aztec Healthcare Ever Fined?
Aztec Healthcare has been fined $136,098 across 3 penalty actions. This is 4.0x the New Mexico average of $34,440. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Aztec Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?
Aztec Healthcare 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.