1701 S. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89146 · Clark County · (702) 871-0005
95 certified beds, about 93 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1988
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 295045 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 27, 2025, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Nevada average is 9.7, the national average 9.2).
None of its 36 health citations since June 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 4.16 hours per resident per day, against 4.34 across Nevada and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.91 of those hours.
45.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Nevada average 45.1%).
CMS links it to David Johnson, an affiliated group of 48 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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse for four sampled residents (Residents 1, 4, 5 and 10). The deficient practice placed other residents at risk of being physically abused.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record, and document review, the facility failed to:1) provide a trauma evaluation after a physical abuse incident for 2 of 10 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 4), and2) implement meaningful interventions for 2 residents (Residents 2 and 5) with psychiatric histories, aggressive behaviors, and refusal of prescribed psychotropic medications. These failures placed residents at risk for mental and emotional harm and increased the risk of physical abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and document review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of physical abuse were reported to the state agency in a timely manner for four sampled residents (Residents 1, 4, 6 and 10). The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to investigate an incident of physical abuse for 1 of 10 sampled residents (Resident 10). The deficient practice placed other residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan was developed for a newly identified wandering behavior for 1 of 10 sampled residents (Resident 1). The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for a repeat resident to resident altercation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was safely discharged to a facility which could meet the care needs of the resident for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 2). The deficient practice had the potential to result in the resident's care needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with severe cognitive impairment received a competency assessment to determine decision-making capacity and the need for a guardian or representative for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 2). The deficient practice had the potential for a severely cognitive impaired resident to not understand or make an informed decision on the care and treatment being provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure consents for psychotropic medications were not obtained from a resident who was assessed to have severely impaired cognition for 1 of 19 sampled residents (Resident 79). The deficient practice potentially deprived the resident and the resident's representative the right to be informed of the medications' purpose, risks, benefits and potential side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure enteral feeding and water flush orders administered through the gastrostomy tube (GT) were followed as ordered, and the total volume delivered was monitored and documented for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident 34). This deficient practice had the potential to result in inadequate nutritional and fluid intake, leading to malnutrition, dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, delayed wound healing, and increased susceptibility to infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure staff foods were stored properly and frozen meat was thawed correctly. This deficient practice posed a potential risk to safety and health standards which could lead to contamination and placed residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure dementia training was provided for 3 of 11 employee files reviewed (Employees 4, 5, and 8) as outlined in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 449.74522
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure visitors and staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene had been performed when cleaning a room under transmission-based precautions (TBP). These deficient practices had the potential to expose residents, staff, and visitors to infectious agents and compromise the facility's infection prevention and control measures.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure abuse training was provided in accordance with the facility assessment and facility policy for 3 of the 11 employee files reviewed (Employees 4, 5, and 8). The deficient practice had the potential to allow unqualified employees to provide care for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was kept safe from physical abuse for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 2) and a resident was protected from abuse by another resident with increasingly aggressive behaviors for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 4). The deficient practice had the potential for the residents to experience emotional and physical harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications left on top of a medication cart were secured. The deficient practice had the potential risk of unauthorized access to medications, medication errors, theft, or misuse of medication within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a blood glucose monitor with a used test strip was not left unattended on top of medication cart. The deficient practice had the potential to compromise the safety and well-being of residents by allowing exposure to blood borne pathogens.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure showers were provided as scheduled for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 1). The deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact the resident's overall well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure food items stored inside the stand-alone cooler and freezer were labeled, dated, and not expired; containers for juice machine were stored according to manufacturer instruction; items in the unit nourishment rooms were labeled, dated, and not expired. 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 wroteResident 28 (R28) R28 was re-admitted on [DATE], with primary diagnoses including anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and a psychotic disorder (other than schizophrenia). On 05/07/2024 in the morning, R28 laid in bed with eyes on telephone with headphones on. R28 appeared lethargic and spoke stating R28 had been in the facility for a little while. The resident was able to make needs known asking about the ability to smoke marijuana in the facility and being able to use a power wheelchair in the facility. On 05/08/2024 in the afternoon, R28 laid in bed with eyes on telephone with headphones on and appeared lethargic. While talking to the resident about the facility's policy on no marijuana smoking, R28 was not able to talk in complete sentences and was not making sense. R28 was talking nonsensical. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record reviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the medication administration record was not signed off before the medications were administered for 2 of 20 sampled residents (Residents 75 and 246). The deficient practice could have the potential risk to resident safety, medication errors, missed doses, or incorrect dosages, and adverse health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to ensure: 1) A resident's wound was cleansed, dressing was replaced or applied as ordered when the wound was soaked with urine and feces for 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident 70), and 2) The wound treatment orders were obtained and transcribed before the treatment was provided for 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident 55). The deficient practice could have the potential to cause delayed healing, worsened wounds, infection, and further complications. Findings Include: Resident 70 (R70) R70 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including pressure-induced deep tissue damage of the sacral region and the presence of a right artificial hip joint. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure: 1) The formula bag or container was labeled with the resident's name, TF rate, date/time, and nurse's initials as ordered, 2) A physician's order of the tube feeding (TF) rate was obtained and transcribed for 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident 55) and, 3) The care orders for the gastrostomy (GT) site and dressing change were obtained, transcribed, and implemented for 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident 55). These deficient practices could have led to complications such as ineffective nutrition, aspiration, or infection, jeopardizing the resident's health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure care and management orders were obtained, transcribed, and carried out for residents who were admitted with an intravenous (IV) access for 2 of 19 sampled residents (Residents 65 and 245). The deficient practice placed the residents at risk for an infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's arteriovenous fistula (AVF) for dialysis access was assessed, a physician order was obtained, and the bruit/thrill was monitored for 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident 70). This deficient practice posed a potential risk of infection and ineffectiveness in dialysis treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to ensure their medication error rate was below five (5) percent (%) when two errors were identified with 25 opportunities observed, calculating an error rate of 8 %. Failure to follow physician orders and timely administer medications posed a potential risk of injury or harm to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment was reviewed and updated when staffing levels were reduced beginning October 2023, and the input of department heads were taken into consideration in accordance with the facility's policy. The deficient practice had the potential to ensure resident's care needs were met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident 101) was free of abuse by a staff member, specifically, an incident involving a staff member who was witnessed to have pushed a resident, which resulted in a fall. The deficient practice had the potential to cause physical harm to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a pre-admission screening and resident review (PASSAR) was completed prior to admission for 6 of 31 sampled residents (Residents #68, #4, #284, #79, #76 and #75) and 11 unsampled residents. The deficient practice potentially placed residents at risk for inappropriate placement with regards to required level of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a consent for a Do Not Resuscitate order was obtained from a person holding a legal power of attorney for medical decision-making for a resident with cognitive impairment for 1 of 31 residents (Resident #140). The deficient practice had the potential to deny the provision of emergency medical treatment, the right to request, deny, or discontinue treatment, and to formulate an advance directive.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the admission nursing assessment by reflecting the actual vision and hearing health impairments for 1 of 31 sampled resident (Resident #140). The deficient practice had the potential to deny the provision of vision and hearing services to improve the quality of life of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan included the actual vision and hearing impairment status for 1 of 31 residents (Resident #140). The deficient practice had the potential to deny the provision of vision and hearing services to improve the quality of life of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1) a resident with wandering behaviors was re-assessed for wandering and elopement behaviors for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident #79) and 2) a resident with swallowing issues who required one-on-one assistance with meals was provided assistance for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident #235). The deficient practice placed the residents of concern and other residents at risk for unsafe wandering, elopement, and aspiration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure clarification orders were obtained for a resident's peripheral intravenous (IV) access which was no longer in use and maintenance care orders were consistently provided for the resident's IV line prior to removal. The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for phlebitis (site infection).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was followed for oxygen therapy for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident #334). The deficient practice had the potential to impact the well-being of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure dietary orders were followed for a resident with mechanically textured diet and a history of weight loss for 1 of 31 sampled residents (Resident #15). This deficient practice placed the resident at risk for choking and weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food products were labeled, proper sanitation was being utilized for three-compartment sink and juice beverage station, dishwasher was properly cleaned, and nourishment room was free from pests. The failure had the potential to put residents at the facility at risk for receiving contaminated food or drinks. On 06/27/2023 at 7:40 AM the stand alone freezer contained a food product which was removed from box and sitting on shelf in plastic, dated, no label to identify product. On 06/27/2023 at 7:45 AM, the dietary aide was working at the three compartment sink and was not able to describe correct sequence for cleaning the dishes using the three compartment sink. There was no sanitizer being utilized and only had water with soap in the middle section of the sink. [...]
33 fire safety citations on file: 8 on June 27, 2025, 10 on May 10, 2024, 15 on June 29, 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) | 4.16 | 4.34 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.91 | 1.12 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.82 | 3.86 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.43 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.6% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 48.0% | 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 4.30 on weekdays and 3.82 on weekends, 11% 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 4.32 in April to June 2025 to 4.16 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 | 4.16 | 0.91 | 4.30 | 3.82 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 93 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.19 | 0.92 | 4.35 | 3.79 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.26 | 1.08 | 4.43 | 3.84 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.32 | 1.02 | 4.55 | 3.72 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 94 |
| 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 | 16.0 | 12.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 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 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.2 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 13.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.7 | 5.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 38.7 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.1 | 23.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.6 | 9.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Torrey Pines Post Acute and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (30.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
30.4% 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. 157 eligible stays.
12.1% 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. 243 eligible stays.
8.3% 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. 204 eligible stays.
59.7% 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. 278 residents counted.
0.2% 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. 438 residents counted.
0.3% 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. 438 residents counted.
96.5% 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. 114 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: TORREY PINES REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC. CMS links this home to David Johnson, a group of 48 nursing homes averaging 3.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Torrey Pines Rehabilitation Hospital LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/14/2012 |
| Chambers, Thomas | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 11/14/2012 | |
| Johnson, David | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 11/14/2012 | |
| Meridian Management Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/13/2013 | |
| Bellinger, Frank | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/08/2022 | |
| Chambers, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/14/2012 | |
| Johnson, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/14/2012 | |
| Punzalan, Rustico | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2024 | |
| Saxena, Alok | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Meridian Management Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/26/2025 | |
| Bellinger, Frank | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/08/2022 | |
| Chambers, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/14/2012 | |
| Johnson, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/14/2012 | |
| Punzalan, Rustico | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2024 | |
| Saxena, Alok | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2024 |
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.