Home / Nevada / North Las Vegas
3215 E. Cheyenne Ave., North Las Vegas, NV 89030 · Clark County · (702) 649-7800
182 certified beds, about 154 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 1980
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 295036 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 29, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Nevada average is 9.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since September 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.48 hours per resident per day, against 4.34 across Nevada and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.44 of those hours.
47.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Nevada average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Fundamental Healthcare, an affiliated group of 66 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents were not confined to a room and barricaded bed, for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 2 and 3). The deficient practice resulted in residents being confined to bed without consent, placing the residents at risk of psychosocial harm, loss of dignity, and compromised resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents have a right to make choices about aspects of their life in the facility which were significant to the residents for 1 of 40 sampled residents (Resident 46) and 6 unsampled residents from the resident council interview. The deficient practice had the potential for the facility to not accommodate the residents' preferences and choices 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 a resident was kept safe from abuse for 1 of 40 sampled residents (Resident 166). The deficient practice had the potential for residents to experience emotional distress and physical harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed for use of an abdominal binder for a resident who had a history of gastrostomy tube (G-tube) dislodgement for 1 of 40 sampled residents (Resident 12). The deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for G-tube dislodgement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was revised to include identification of the need for oxygen therapy and corresponding interventions for 1 of 40 sampled residents (Resident 41). The deficient practice had the potential to result in unmet respiratory care needs, lack of staff guidance, and inadequate monitoring of oxygen therapy, which could compromise the resident's respiratory status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were adhered to for timely administration of medications and correct medication preparation and administration technique for medications given via the enteral route for 3 of 40 sampled residents (Residents 10, 15, and 12). The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for adverse effects related to medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a dependent resident was provided with nail care and hygiene to contracted hand for 1 of 40 sampled residents (Resident 12). The deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact residents' overall wellbeing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure therapy recommendations for use of a palm guard for a resident with severe hand contracture were transcribed as an order and implemented for 1 of 40 sampled residents (Resident 12). The deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for worsening contracture and pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured and not left at residents' bedside for 2 of 40 sampled residents (Residents 14 and 15). The deficient practice had the potential to place the residents at risk for adverse reactions to potential medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure foods were stored per recommended standards and ice machines were cleaned in 3 of 4 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment policy was reviewed and updated to reflect new guidance which included the active involvement of direct care staff, input from residents, resident representatives, family members and ensuring there were sufficient number of competent staff to meet the needs of each resident and failed to involve direct care staff in the development of the facility assessment. The deficient practice had the potential to result in an incomplete evaluation of resident population and facility resources, which could affect staffing decisions, training, and availability of services needed to meet resident needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the facility had a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect the outcomes of resident care and the quality of each resident's life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain the laundry environment in a sanitary condition by allowing a non-operational dryer located in the clean area of the laundry to accumulate dust inside and on the exterior surfaces. The deficient practice had the potential to contaminate the clean linens and increase the risk of infection for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a medication was administered timely to 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #2). The deficient practice had a potential for the intended use of the medication to be insufficient or ineffective with a possible cause of harm to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide pain medication as requested, assess, and document resident pain level accurately according to physician's order for 1 of 1 unsampled residents (Resident 4). The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for ineffective and inadequate pain control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to complete a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level 2 evaluation for newly found changes or diagnosis for 4 of 32 sampled residents (Resident 115, 81, 139 and 119). The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk of not being evaluated for appropriate determination of necessary behavioral health services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1) the physician was notified of a high Vancomycin trough level (laboratory monitoring of Vancomycin to maintain therapeutic blood levels and prevent serious side effects) prior to administration of next dose and, 2) there was a physician order to hold Vancomycin when the nurse decided to not administer the medication during subsequent shift for a resident who was being treated for bacterial pneumonia for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident 143). The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for ineffective antibiotic therapy and serious side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure care orders were entered and carried out for a colostomy (a surgical opening in the abdomen which provides a means for the collection of waste from the colon) in accordance with the resident care plan and facility policy for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident 69). The deficient practice had the potential for introducing infection and negative outcome of residents with a colostomy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure gastrostomy (G-tube) care orders were entered and carried out in accordance with facility protocol for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident 79). The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for G-tube complications including but not limited to infection, malposition and discomfort.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of five percent (%) or greater for one unsampled resident (Resident 58) and 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident 61). The deficient practice placed other residents at risk for medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and document review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence influenza and pneumococcal vaccine was provided for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 115 and 81). The deficient practice had a potential to prevent ensuring residents have had the necessary vaccines in fighting off diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and document review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence Corona Virus 19 (COVID 19) vaccine was provided for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 115 and 81). The deficient practice had a potential to prevent ensuring residents have had the necessary vaccine in fighting off the specific viral disease.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure verbal abuse or neglect allegation was reported to the abuse coordinator and state agency within the prescribed time for 2 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2). The deficient practice could have the potential to put the residents at risk of further abuse or neglect, causing emotional distress and harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to ensure the allegations of verbal abuse and neglect were thoroughly investigated. The summary of the investigation, outcome or resolution, measures taken, and required documentation were not compiled and maintained for 2 of the 7 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2). This deficient practice could potentially compromise the safety and well-being of the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1) a resident was kept safe from physical abuse for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 159); 2) nursing staff followed up on physician orders and monitored a resident who experienced a change in condition for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 309) ; and 3) incontinence care was provided to 2 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 1 and 84) for seven hours. The deficient practice had the potential for the residents to not receive adequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level II referral was completed for 8 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 26, 64, 88, 74, 32, 7, 15, and 4). The deficient practice did not identify residents with a potential need for specialized services after a diagnosis of mental disorder (a clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered timely for 2 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 73 and 128). The deficient practice had the potential to impact treatment efficacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review. The facility failed to ensure podiatry follow up was completed for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident #61). Failure to identify the need for foot care could put the resident at risk of developing a wound or infection and a decrease of sense of well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure the restorative nursing services were provided per the therapy recommendations for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 130). The deficient practice had the potential for the resident's further decline in physical functioning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an unused intravenous (IV) - lock (a thin, flexible tube placed in a vein in your hand or arm) was discontinued for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident #318). The deficient practice had the potential to be a portal of access for any microbial organism causing tissue infection at the insertion site.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale was completed per the facility's policy (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 2 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 77 and 84); and a consent for psychotropic medications was obtained for 2 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 84 and 32). The deficient practice had the potential to result in adverse consequences for the resident's health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure two multidose medications were labeled accordingly for 1 of 3 medication rooms. The failure to properly identify a discard date of a medication could result in administration of a sub-potent medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure the refrigerator in 1 of the 3 nourishment rooms was within the recommended temperature to keep cold foods cold. The deficient practice had the potential to impact the well-being of the residents through potential consumption of hazardous food items. On 08/30/2023 at approximately 8:05 AM, the refrigerator in the 200-hall nourishment room had an internal temperature of 48 degrees Fahrenheit. The Dietary Director confirmed the temperature. The refrigerator contained the following food items: - Three small apple sauce containers - Four milk cartons - Three medium sized plastic bags containing resident specific food items One apple sauce container was pulled from the refrigerator which had an internal temperature of 47 degrees Fahrenheit. The Dietary Director confirmed the temperature. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure the Record of Death and Mortician's Receipt form was completed for 1 of 3 sampled close records reviewed (Resident 157). The deficient practice had the potential for the facility failing to maintain an accurate and complete record to release the body of a deceased person to the appropriate entity and the resident's record of death. Resident 157 (R157) R157 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on [DATE], with diagnoses including encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation, burns involving less than 10% of body surface, and poisoning by unspecified narcotics, accidental (unintentional), initial encounter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and record review, the facility failed to ensure immunizations were provided and recorded for 5 of 6 sampled residents. (Resident #98, #8, #109, #148 and #139). The failure to administer vaccines poses a risk of a resident to contract communicable diseases.
32 fire safety citations on file: 9 on August 29, 2025, 9 on September 11, 2024, 14 on September 1, 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 | Nevada | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.48 | 4.34 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.44 | 1.12 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.15 | 3.86 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.91 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 47.3% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 63.6% | 43.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.64 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 3.62 on weekdays and 3.15 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.31 in April to June 2025 to 3.48 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 | 3.48 | 0.44 | 3.62 | 3.15 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 154 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.54 | 0.46 | 3.67 | 3.21 | 0.5% | 0 of 92 | 152 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.40 | 0.28 | 3.52 | 3.09 | 4.6% | 0 of 92 | 155 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.31 | 0.24 | 3.44 | 2.98 | 3.9% | 0 of 91 | 158 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 14.2 | 12.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.5 | 13.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 5.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.9 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 32.9 | 23.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 9.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for North Las Vegas Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (43.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.4% this home
No different from 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. 33 eligible stays.
10.7% this home
No different from 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. 62 eligible stays.
7.8% 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. 33 eligible stays.
51.7% 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. 29 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 50 residents counted.
4.2% 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. 50 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: 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. 7 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: THI OF NEVADA II AT NORTH LAS VEGAS, LLC. CMS links this home to Fundamental Healthcare, a group of 66 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thi of Nevada II Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/30/2003 |
| Montes, Mistie | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/21/2021 | |
| Montes, Mistie | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/21/2021 |
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.