7500 North Calle Sin Envidia, Tucson, AZ 85718 · Pima County · (520) 742-6242
42 certified beds, about 29 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare since 1999
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 035253 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 27, 2025, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Arizona average is 6.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 31 health citations since January 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.45 hours per resident per day, against 3.98 across Arizona and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.01 of those hours.
37.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Arizona average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Brookdale Senior Living, an affiliated group of 12 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, the State Agency's (SA) complaint portal, and review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure their Neglect policy was implemented in that an allegation of neglect was not reported to the SA within the required timeframe and the investigation of the alleged neglect was not documented. The deficient practice could lead to residents feeling unsafe and/or having their needs unmet while receiving care at the facility. However these findings represent past non-compliance with this regulatory requirement. There was sufficient evidence the facility corrected the non-compliance as of April 20, 1026. At the time of the survey, the facility was in substantial compliance with this regulatory requirement .These findings represent past non-compliance with this regulatory requirement. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, the State Agency's (SA) complaint portal, and review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of neglect was reported to the SA within the timeframes required by the facility's policy and federal regulation. The deficient practice could lead to residents feeling unsafe and/or having their needs unmet while receiving care at the facility. These findings represent past non-compliance with this regulatory requirement. There was sufficient evidence the facility corrected the non-compliance as of April 24, 1026. At the time of the survey, the facility was in substantial compliance with this regulatory requirement . The facility supported evidence of non-compliance with the following:The facility corrected the noncompliance and achieved substantial compliance on April 24, 2026, prior to the current survey #233B96-H1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, the State Agency's (SA) complaint portal, and review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of neglect was thoroughly investigated and that the investigation was documented. The deficient practice could lead to residents feeling unsafe and/or having their needs unmet while receiving care at the facility. These findings represent past non-compliance with this regulatory requirement. There was sufficient evidence the facility corrected the non-compliance as of April 24, 1026. At the time of the survey, the facility was in substantial compliance with this regulatory requirement . The facility corrected the noncompliance and achieved substantial compliance on April 24, 2026, prior to the current survey #233B96-H1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, facility documentation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (#2) was properly transferred during a shower. The deficient practice could lead to serious injury. The Facility provided sufficient evidence that noncompliance was identified on March 27, 2026, and April 16.2026 prior to the survey, and was in substantial compliance at the time of the survey for F0684. A QAPI meeting minutes revealed the original date identified was April 16, 2026, and the meeting was conducted on April 19, 2026, education provided by the facility revealed evidence of staff education/training. Past non compliance was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered, stored and residents were assessed for self-administration of medication for 3 residents (#1, #7 and #24). The deficient practice could result in medications not being administered according to physician's orders and medications not being stored safely.-Regarding Resident # 7Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include fracture of the right femur, cognitive communication deficit, weakness, and the need for assistance with personal care. Review of the admission MDS, dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 13 which indicated Resident #7 was cognitively intact. An observation was conducted on June 24, 2025 at 2:31 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and review of policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure multiple infection control practices were being adhered to in the kitchen. The deficient practices could increase the risk of residents consuming food that is not being prepared in a sanitary manner. The facility ' s census was 27.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered, stored and residents were assessed for self-administration of medication for one residents (#1). The deficient practice could result in medications not being administered according to physician's orders and medications not being stored safely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, observations, and facility documentation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of quality were met regarding accurate documentation for one sampled resident (#15). The deficient practice could result in resident records not being accurate and complete.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, facility documentation, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#332) was free from preventable accidents including oral administration of Dakins solution. The sample size was 13. This deficient practice could result in an adverse event for the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility record review, review of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) Licensing verification system and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/Staff #29) had a valid license to practice in the State of Arizona. The deficient practice could lead to care provided to residents not meeting their needs safely and in a manner that promotes residents' rights, physical, mental, and social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of policy and procedure, the facility failed to develop a complete baseline care plan that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for one resident (#3). The deficient practice could result in resident care needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on documentation, staff interviews, and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that a resident was appropriately monitored post fall. The deficient practice could result in residents being injured.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two residents (#26 and #79) and their representatives were notified, in writing, of the reason for a transfer to the hospital. The deficient practice could result in residents being inappropriately transferred or discharged and not having a continuity of care once leaving the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control protocols were followed during medication administration for two residents (#179 and #6). The deficient practice could result in the development and transmission of infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was in proper working order.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#79) was given a bed-hold policy before a transfer to the hospital. The deficient practice may result in the resident and resident representative not being aware of the bed-hold policy and their right to return to the facility immediately after hospital discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#20) and their representative were provided with a summary of the baseline care plan. The deficient practice could result in residents and their representative not receiving a summary of their baseline care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel file review, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that two of two sampled Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA/staffs #35 and #8) were able to demonstrate competencies and skills necessary to provide care for residents. The census was 31. The deficient practice could result in inadequate care for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to implement a surveillance plan for identifying, tracking, monitoring of infection and failed to ensure an ongoing analysis of surveillance data and documentation of follow-up activity response. The deficient practice could result in the spread of infections in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to conduct an ongoing review for antibiotic stewardship as required by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidelines, and failed to review clinical signs and symptoms and laboratory reports to determine if antibiotics are indicated. The deficient practice could have the potential for residents to have adverse effects due to the lack of protocols and monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident's (#140) advance directives were completed upon admission. The deficient practice could result in resident's advanced directives not being known or honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident's (#18) care plan was updated/revised to meet her changing needs. The sample size was 15. The deficient practice could result in inadequate care and/or not meeting the needs of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to convey the discharge summary information to the resident and/or authorized person, and failed to include reconciliation of all pre and post discharge medications for one resident (#33). The deficient practice could result in resident's not receiving the correct discharge information and medications.
Inspectors wroteBased upon personnel file review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to complete yearly performance reviews and provide regular in-service education based upon the outcome of the reviews for 1 of 2 sampled Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA/staff #35). The inadequate practice could result in insufficient and inadequate care for residents. The facility census was 31.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a pharmacist recommendation was reviewed and acted upon for one resident (#5). The sample size was 5 residents. The deficient practice could result in medication irregularities that go unnoticed or are not acted upon.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of policy, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#5) receiving psychotropic medications received consistent monitoring for behaviors and side effects and failed to ensure a PRN (as needed) anti-anxiety medication had a duration of treatment. Five residents were reviewed for medication use. The deficient practice could result in unnecessary medication use and adverse side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation, interviews, policy, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance, the facility failed to ensure the Infection Preventionist (IP) had completed infection control training. The deficient practice could lead to unqualified staff acting as the IP and improper infection prevention practices within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, staff interview and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (#140) received information regarding the benefits and potential side effects of influenza and/or pneumococcal immunizations, and failed to offer the vaccinations according to their policy. The deficient practice could increase the risk of residents acquiring, transmitting or experiencing complications from influenza and/or pneumococcal disease.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to maintain documentation related to COVID-19 vaccine exemption requirement for one staff (#33).
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel file reviews, staff interviews, and review of policy, the facility failed to provide evidence that 1 out 10 sampled staff (#36) was provided training for abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. The facility census was 31. The deficient practice could result in inadequate recognition, prevention and reporting of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel file review, interviews, and Federal guidelines, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA/staff #35) had no less than 12 hours per year of required in-service training to ensure continuing competencies. The facility census was 31. The deficient practice could result in inadequate care for residents.
1 fire safety citation on file: 1 on May 1, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Arizona | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.45 | 3.98 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.01 | 0.70 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.11 | 3.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.05 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.39 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 37.8% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 37.5% | 43.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.86 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.59 on weekdays and 4.11 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.35 in April to June 2025 to 4.45 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.45 | 1.01 | 4.59 | 4.11 | 0.1% | 1 of 90 | 29 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.71 | 0.95 | 4.86 | 4.35 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 30 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.41 | 0.78 | 4.54 | 4.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 35 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.35 | 0.83 | 4.54 | 3.86 | 1.5% | 0 of 91 | 35 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Arizona, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.87 | 0.63 | 4.05 | 3.43 | 3.3% | 0.5% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.53 | $18.43 to $22.42 | 20,320 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $37.05 | $32.10 to $39.36 | 6,530 |
| Registered nurses | $47.84 | $39.33 to $52.20 | 73,150 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Arizona | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 31.8 | 10.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.0 | 23.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Brookdale Santa Catalina's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.6% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Arizona: 74 better, 1 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 250 eligible stays.
11.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Arizona: 4 better, 1 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 267 eligible stays.
6.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Arizona: 6 better, 1 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 146 eligible stays.
55.0% this home
Median of homes: Arizona69.9% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 100 residents counted.
1.3% this home
Median of homes: Arizona0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 160 residents counted.
7.0% this home
Median of homes: Arizona0.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 159 residents counted.
98.0% this home
Median of homes: Arizona95.1% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 99 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: ARC SANTA CATALINA INC. CMS links this home to Brookdale Senior Living, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 3.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arcpi Holdings Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/30/2002 |
| White, Chadwick | Corporate director | Individual | 03/09/2018 | |
| Kussow, Dawn | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/15/2024 | |
| La Marre, Kevin | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/22/2017 | |
| Munoz, Anna | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/15/2024 | |
| Stengle, Nikolas | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/08/2025 | |
| White, Chadwick | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/09/2018 | |
| Curtis, Rebecca | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/22/2025 | |
| Kussow, Dawn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/15/2024 | |
| Munoz, Anna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/15/2024 | |
| Schiltz, Julie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/22/2025 | |
| Stengle, Nikolas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/08/2025 | |
| Stumler, Renee | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/06/2026 | |
| Wadleigh, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/22/2025 | |
| White, Chadwick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/09/2018 | |
| Asher, Jordan | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Drayton, Claudia | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Fioravanti, Mark | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Freed, Victoria | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Hausman, Joshua | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Mace, Elizabeth | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Munoz, Anna | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Warren, Denise | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Wielansky, Lee | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Lbmc PC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Ohi Asset (az) Tucson-7500 North Calle Sin Envidia LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/20/2021 | |
| Ohi Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/20/2021 | |
| Omega Healthcare Investors Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/20/2021 | |
| Walters Financial Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/22/2025 | |
| Stumler, Renee | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/20/2026 | |
| Wadleigh, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/25/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Arizona. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.