6461 East Baywood Avenue, Mesa, AZ 85206 · Maricopa County · (480) 832-5160
160 certified beds, about 150 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 035071 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 20, 2026, inspectors cited 1 health deficiency (the Arizona average is 6.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 16 health citations since September 2022 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 3.54 hours per resident per day, against 3.98 across Arizona and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.51 of those hours.
37.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Arizona 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 16 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that the facility's abuse and neglect policies are followed for one out of 145 residents (resident #145) regarding abuse reporting to appropriate agency. This deficient practice had the potential to further endanger the resident and impede a timely and thorough investigation.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: 145Number of residents cited: 1TFFTE that an allegation of abuse was reported to the applicable agencies for one resident (#176)Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse was reported to the state agency for one out of 145 residents (resident #145). This deficient practice had the potential to further endanger the resident and impede a timely and thorough investigation.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: 145Number of residents cited: 1TFFTE that an abuse investigation was conducted for one resident following an allegation of abuse (#176)Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse was investigated for one out of 145 residents (resident #145). This deficient practice had the potential to further endanger the resident and impede a timely and thorough investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews, review of facility documentation, and the facility's policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected one resident's, #108, status. The census was 145. The deficient practice could lead to residents not receiving personalized care that fits their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate monitoring of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (wound vac) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #4). The deficient practice could result in the potential for the wound vac therapy to be ineffective and cause wounds to get worse.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff had the qualifications and competencies to provide direct care to residents. The deficient practice could result in underqualified staff providing inadequate direct care to residents, and potential for medical error.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure treatment requiring oxygen was ordered by the physician for 1 out of 3 sampled residents (#480). The deficient practice could result in the potential for the resident not receiving the appropriate treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed clinical record review, staff interviews, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse for one resident (#2) was reported to the State Agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff and family interviews, as well as policy and facility documentation, the facility failed to ensure a resident's privacy during medication administration. Failure to respect privacy has the potential to erode trust, dignity, and a sense of well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one resident's (#93) environment was free from hazards. The deficient practice could result in accidents occurring.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that a resident with an indwelling catheter received appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical review, staff interviews, and the facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that one resident's (#66) pain medication was administered within parameters. The deficient practice could result in residents being overly medicated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, the clinical record, staff and resident interviews, and the policy and procedures, the facility failed to obtain dental services to meet the needs of one resident (#14). The deficient practice could result in tooth decay, pain, and affect nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that one staff (#113) sanitized her hands prior to handling the one resident's (#93) food/container. The deficient practice could result in food being contaminated.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#92) was not verbally abused by a temporary nurse aide (TNA/staff #175). The census was 139. The deficient practice can result in additional incidents of staff to resident abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure restorative nursing program/services (RNA) was provide as ordered for one resident (#57). The deficient practice could result in resident not receiving the needed services to maintain, improve or prevent avoidable decline in function.
5 fire safety citations on file: 3 on February 20, 2026, 2 on November 17, 2023.
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) | 3.54 | 3.98 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.51 | 0.70 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.19 | 3.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.83 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.20 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 37.1% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 15.8% | 43.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.76 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 3.69 on weekdays and 3.19 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 3.49 in April to June 2025 to 3.54 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 | 3.54 | 0.51 | 3.69 | 3.19 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 150 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.53 | 0.52 | 3.68 | 3.16 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 154 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.48 | 0.51 | 3.63 | 3.10 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 154 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.49 | 0.53 | 3.67 | 3.04 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 153 |
| 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 | 4.2 | 10.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.6 | 12.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.2 | 10.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.4 | 23.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.8 | 10.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Mission Palms Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (64.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
64.1% 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. 204 eligible stays.
12.1% 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. 221 eligible stays.
6.1% 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. 108 eligible stays.
81.7% 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. 82 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 125 residents counted.
0.6% 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. 125 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 8 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: ROYAL VIEW HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bandera Healthcare LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/14/2019 | |
| The Ensign Group Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/30/2006 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/14/2019 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Monks, Chandler | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2024 | |
| Peterson, Forrest | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/14/2019 | |
| Gande, Lalith | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Wagner, Clayton | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Port, Barry | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/16/2025 | |
| Baywood Health Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| Standard Bearer Healthcare Op LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| The Ensign Group Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| Gande, Lalith | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Wagner, Clayton | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/09/2025 |
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.