1180 E. Lake Mead Parkway, Henderson, NV 89015 · Clark County · (702) 565-8555
266 certified beds, about 239 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 295037 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 1, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Nevada average is 9.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 40 health citations since August 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $40,830 in the last three years; the largest was $40,830, and the latest is dated December 13, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.35 hours per resident per day, against 4.34 across Nevada and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.68 of those hours.
35.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Nevada average 45.1%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 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 40 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse for one of ten sampled residents (Resident 4). The deficient practice placed other residents at risk of being sexually abused.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the medication was administered as ordered for 2 of 10 (Residents 2 and 3). The deficient practice had the potential to result in ineffective treatment, exacerbation of existing medical conditions, recurrence or progression of symptoms, avoidable discomfort or distress and compromised resident safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's wheelchair was properly secured in the transportation van, and the required pre-trip inspection was completed prior to transport for 1 of 10 sampled residents (Resident 1). The deficient practice resulted in an actual resident fall, had the potential to cause serious injury during transportation, and placed residents at risk for avoidable accidents and fall-related injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1) residents' medications were administered and accurately documented for 2 of 8 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2) and 2) medication errors were reported and follow-up was completed when medication errors were identified for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 1). The deficient practice had the potential to result in unmanaged pain, delayed treatment, compromised continuity of care, an increased risk for complications, decline in functional status, hospitalization, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the governing body of the facility failed to oversee services performed by a contracted vendor, including ensuring the accuracy of documentation of resident behaviors and for 6 of 28 residents (Residents 4, 9, 11, 15, 18, and 19). This deficient practice had the potential to lead to inappropriate tiering and state payments for residents in a Medicaid Behaviorally Complex Care Program.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) signage was posted and staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing direct care to residents with indwelling medical devices for 4 of 35 sampled residents (Residents 132, 196, 89 and 194). These deficient practices had the potential to place residents, staff, and visitors at risk for cross-contamination and transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), compromising the infection prevention and control program.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comfortable homelike environment was maintained for 2 of 35 sampled residents (Residents 215 and 12) and 3 unsampled residents (Residents 160, 33, and 65). The failure to provide a homelike environment had the potential risk to cause psychosocial distress to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the state mental health authority was notified after a significant change in the mental health condition of a resident with a history of mental health disorder for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Resident 12). The deficient practice had the potential to deprive residents of necessary behavioral health services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a smoking safety assessment was completed for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Resident 137), and an Oxygen tank place inside a resident room was properly secured in a tank holder for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Resident 147). The deficient practice had the potential for placing residents' safety at risk for fire and severe injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a physician order for specialist consultation was arranged for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Resident 6). The deficient had potential for prompt medical interventions or recommendations to be delayed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the tube-feeding (TF) formula bag and tubing was labeled for 3 of 35 sampled residents (Residents 118, 251, and 222). The deficient practices could have the potential for formula contamination, inaccurate nutrient intake, infection, dehydration, and nutritional compromise.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure Oxygen (O2) was administered as ordered and failed to clean the Oxygen concentrator for 2 of 35 sampled residents (Resident 123 and 166). The deficient practice had the potential to result in resident hypoxemia or Oxygen toxicity due to incorrect flow rates, equipment malfunction, and transmission of respiratory pathogens from contaminated equipment, thus compromising respiratory status and overall safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the ordered pain-scale parameters were followed for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Resident 8). This deficient practice had the potential to result in unmanaged pain, delayed or inappropriate analgesic administration, functional decline, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure foods were stored properly and ice machines were cleaned in 1 of 2 ice makers in the facility. This deficient practice posed a potential risk to safety and health standards which could lead to contamination and place residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical restraints for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 7). The deficient practice placed the resident at risk of physical and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) was provided for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 6). The deficient practice had the potential for the resident's skin integrity to be compromised.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and document review, the facility failed to follow physicians' orders for the application of a BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure BiPAP (a non-invasive ventilation device that facilitates breathing and improve oxygenation for conditions that impair breathing like COPD) for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident #3). The deficient practice had the potential to cause inadequate oxygenation, respiratory distress, or worsening of underlying conditions such as COPD, placing the resident in a risk for complications, including hypoxia, increased carbon dioxide retention, and respiratory failure.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the call light buttons were within the reach of the residents for 1 of 11 sampled residents (Resident 1). The deficient practice had the potential safety risk of the resident experiencing delays in receiving necessary assistance, leading to potential safety risks like falls, discomfort, and being unable to alert staff when they need help.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a sampled resident (Resident #4) with severe cognitive impairment was adequately supervised and was not able to elope from the facility. The deficient practice had the potential for physical and psychosocial harm to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure the walk-in freezer was maintained in safe operating condition, food items stored inside the reach-in refrigerator and freezer were labeled, dated, and not expired, the kitchen was maintained in sanitary condition and a hand washing sink was provided for the steam table set up in the main dining room for meal service. The deficient practice posed a potential risk to safety and health standards which could lead to contamination, inadequate storage, and place residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop a care plan for denture care needs for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Resident 15). The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for inability to chew food, malnutrition and unintentional weight loss
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide pressure ulcer (PU) preventative measures for 1 of 3 sample closed records reviewed (Resident 246). The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for worsening pressure ulcers and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided 1:1 feeding assistance per physician order for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Residents 114). The deficient practice had the potential to prevent residents from consuming provided meals to maintain optimal weight.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1) dialysis (renal replacement therapy) appointments were not missed, or full treatment not completed for 2 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 114 and 220); and 2) dialysis communication records were completed for 3 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 176, 113, and 126). The deficient practice placed the residents at risk for complications of insufficient dialysis including but not limited to fluid overload, uremia (toxins in the blood) and electrolyte imbalance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale was completed (AIMS - a rating scale designed to measure involuntary movements known as tardive dyskinesia which could develop as a side effect of an antipsychotic medication) for 1 of 35 sampled residents (Resident 15). The deficient practice had the potential to result in adverse consequences for resident's health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to secure a resident in a wheelchair when it did not ensure the pre-transport securement checklist was completed, and the shoulder strap was placed prior to transit for 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice led to a fall incident inside the facility bus, resulting in fractures (broken bones) of the third, fourth, and fifth metacarpal bones of the dominant right hand.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palatable temperature for three sampled residents (Residents 9, 10, and 11) and one unsampled resident. The deficient practice had the potential to affect the amount of nutrients consumed by residents and their nutritional status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a physicians' order was obtained and an assessment was completed for the self-administration of medication for 1 of 38 sampled residents (Resident 8). The deficient practice had the potential for the resident's unsafe administration of medication or adverse reactions to medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure Protected Health Information (PHI) was safe guarded for 3 of 38 sampled residents (Resident 395, 396, 51). The deficient practice had the potential to reveal confidential information to staff, residents, and visitors with the potential for resident identity to be revealed and information to be used inappropriately by others.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) involved in a verified allegation of neglect with unprofessional conduct was reported to the State Board of Nursing (BON) in accordance with the facility policy for 1 of 38 sampled residents. The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk of health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to update a resident's care plan following a resident-to-resident altercation for 1 of 38 sampled residents (Resident 107). The deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for inappropriate care, supervision, and accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure medications were appropriately administered and not left at the bedside for 1 of 38 sampled residents (Resident 220). The deficient practice had the potential to lead to missed medication doses and harm to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not missed or administered late for 1 of 38 sampled residents (Resident 218). The deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact the overall health condition of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident was not able to leave the facility without staff awareness for approximately seven hours for 1 of 38 sampled residents (Resident 238). The deficient practice had the potential to endanger the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document, the facility failed to ensure care orders were entered and followed for a resident's intravenous (IV) access for 1 of 38 residents (Resident 444). The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for phlebitis (site infection).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an annual performance evaluation was completed for 1 of 5 Certified Nursing Assistants. The failure to complete the performance evaluation of the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in a timely manner could potentially compromise the quality of care provided to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a locked medication cart and medication cart keys were secured. The failed practice had the potential for staff, residents, and visitors to have access to medications including narcotics. On 08/16/2023 from approximately 7:31 AM to 7:47 AM, a Registered Nurse (RN) in the 100-hall entered and exited room [ROOM NUMBER] three different times. The RN initially entered the room to introduce themselves and explain care to the resident. The RN then entered the room a second time to check the resident's blood sugar, and lastly to check the resident's blood pressure. Each time the RN entered the resident's room, the medication cart was left unlocked. The medication cart was slanted and not completely facing the room of R396. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and document review the facility failed to ensure refrigerated items were not expired when accepting delivery, resident food items were dated and labeled in nourishment rooms, tube feed solution was not expired, and nourishment rooms were free from pests. The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for a food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure Hospice services were provided for 1 of 38 sampled residents (Resident 211) in accordance with the Hospice agreement and facility policy. The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for not receiving end-of-life care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure mandatory training which included abuse, fire, disaster, and dementia training was provided to 5 of 5 sampled Certified Nursing Assistant (Employees 1, 2, 9, 10 and 11). The deficient practice placed residents at risk for inappropriate care.
39 fire safety citations on file: 6 on August 1, 2025, 14 on August 23, 2024, 19 on August 17, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 13, 2023 | Fine | $40,830 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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 | Nevada | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.35 | 4.34 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.68 | 1.12 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.01 | 3.86 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.82 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.85 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.7% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 22.2% | 43.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.48 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 3.49 on weekdays and 3.01 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.39 in April to June 2025 to 3.35 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 | 3.35 | 0.68 | 3.49 | 3.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 239 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.41 | 0.70 | 3.53 | 3.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 237 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.45 | 0.71 | 3.61 | 3.07 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 239 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.39 | 0.64 | 3.53 | 3.02 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 237 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Nevada, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.88 | 0.85 | 4.05 | 3.46 | 2.7% | 0.1% 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.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.87 | $18.80 to $23.07 | 8,100 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $36.62 | $31.70 to $38.26 | 3,350 |
| Registered nurses | $49.84 | $41.76 to $57.82 | 27,070 |
| 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 | Nevada | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.4 | 12.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.5 | 13.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.6 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.8 | 23.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.3 | 9.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Henderson Health and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (41.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
41.0% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Nevada: 9 better, 7 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. 131 eligible stays.
13.6% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Nevada: 0 better, 5 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. 223 eligible stays.
7.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Nevada: 1 better, 0 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. 136 eligible stays.
74.2% this home
Median of homes: Nevada60.3% · 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. 124 residents counted.
1.6% this home
Median of homes: Nevada0.4% · 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. 194 residents counted.
1.0% this home
Median of homes: Nevada1.6% · 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. 194 residents counted.
93.8% this home
Median of homes: Nevada91.8% · 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. 64 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: MOON COVE HEALTHCARE, INC.. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson, Seth | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Gubler, Jason | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/22/2022 | |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Hawkins, Isaiah | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Sato, Ami | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Anderson, Seth | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Gubler, Jason | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/22/2022 | |
| Port, Barry | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 06/19/2025 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/09/2022 | |
| Anderson, Seth | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/18/2025 | |
| Gubler, Jason | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/18/2025 |
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.