5538 W Duncan Dr, Las Vegas, NV 89130 · Clark County · (702) 645-2606
144 certified beds, about 137 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1969
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 295008 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 1, 2025, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Nevada average is 9.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 54 health citations since June 2022, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $46,462 in the last three years; the largest was $35,311, and the latest is dated March 24, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.01 hours per resident per day, against 4.34 across Nevada and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
CMS links it to The Charly Bello Family, the Maze Family, the Swain Family, & Walter Myers, an affiliated group of 20 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 54 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from abuse. A thorough investigation of a resident-to-resident sexual abuse allegation was not conducted, and the resident was not promptly protected or monitored following the allegation for 1 of 52 sampled residents (Resident 45). This deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for continued abuse, emotional distress, fear, anxiety, a diminished sense of safety, and delayed implementation of interventions necessary to protect the resident from further abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, the facility failed to submit a final investigative report to the state agency following an alleged abuse incident for 2 of 37 residents (Resident 84 and resident 85). This deficient practice had the potential to delay state agency review, impede regulatory oversight, and result in noncompliance with mandated abuse reporting requirements.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was completed for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 1). The deficient practice had the potential for a resident not to have a person-centered intervention to assist with health care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure common side effects monitoring for psychotropic medications were initiated for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 1). The deficient practice had the potential for a resident not to be monitored for serious adverse reactions of medication preventing the prompt implementation of interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure:1) a resident was readmitted to the facility following hospitalization for 1 of 8 sampled residents (R1), and2) written criteria addressing residents hospitalized under a legal hold (L2K) was formulated and implemented. The deficient practice resulted in R1, who required medication management, assistance with activities of daily living, and nursing supervision, being left without housing, care, and access to prescribed medications, placing the resident at risk for serious harm, including deterioration in condition, hospitalization, or death. The deficient practice had the potential to affect other residents in the facility who required similar services if the practice continued.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review the facility failed to ensure 1) staff re-assessed the smoking status and updated the care plan after a significant change of condition was completed regarding a decline in cognition and accurately assess the tobacco use section of the Minimum Data Set (MDS); 2) complete a safe smoking assessment and update the plan of care for a resident was found smoking inside room; and 3) ensure a resident lighter and cigarettes were secured for 1 of 38 sampled residents (Resident 1). The deficient practice resulted in a resident smoking in the room causing a fire, and hospitalization for burns and smoke inhalation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the fire alarm system, portable fire extinguishers and fire safety plan were maintained in accordance with the following National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards:NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, the 10 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, and the 101 Life Safety Code. The deficient practice affected 36 residents in one of six smoke compartments. The facility was licensed for 144 nursing beds with a census of 137 the day of survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure staff requested permission from a resident prior to removing the battery of the motorized wheelchair for 1 of 37 sampled residents (Resident (R) 31). The deficient practice had the potential for inhibiting a resident from utilizing a motorized wheelchair for independent movement in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review the facility failed to ensure informed consent was obtained prior to administration of psychotropic medications for 1 of 37 sampled residents (Resident 8). The deficient practice potentially deprived residents of the right to be informed of the medications' risks, benefits and potential side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure an advance directive and/or public guardianship was initiated and obtained for 1 of 37 sampled residents (Resident (R)12). The deficient practice had the potential for the resident, who was evaluated as not having the capacity to manage medical and financial decisions, to have a proper representation in health care decision-making.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents were kept safe from physical abuse for 4 of 37 sampled residents (Resident (R) 3, 53, 113, and 151). The deficient practice had the potential for the residents to experience emotional and physical harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with moderate cognitive impairment was adequately supervised and was not able to elope from the facility for 1 of 37 sampled residents (Resident 113). The deficient practice had the potential for physical and psychosocial harm to a resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure education regarding the risks and benefits of the pneumococcal, influenza, and covid-19 vaccines, and failed to ensure administration or obtain documented declinations for 2 of 5 residents sampled for infection control (Residents 95 and 155). The deficient practice compromised the facility infection prevention and control program and placed residents at increased risk for vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks, including respiratory illnesses with serious health consequences in vulnerable populations.
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 12 sampled residents (Resident 10). The deficient practice had the potential for the resident to experience emotional and physical harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure an alleged incident of verbal abuse was reported to the State Agency (SA) within the required timeframes for 1 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #11). The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for incidents of verbal abuse to not be adequately protected.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders for the application of heel protectors were followed for 1 of 12 sampled residents (Resident 5). The deficient practice had the potential to lead to the development of skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure abuse policies and procedures were implemented for 1 of 5 sampled residents. The deficient practice had the potential to put residents at risk of negative physical or psychosocial outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record reviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to ensure an incident in which an elderly resident with dementia and Alzheimer's disease was forced to take medications was promptly reported to the abuse coordinator and the agency within the mandated timeframes for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 5). This deficient practice had the potential to lead to unaddressed abuse and compromise the resident's health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to follow its abuse protocol, specifically, staff members who witnessed, or were aware of a resident-to-resident altercation did not report the allegation of physical abuse to the Abuse Coordinator or designee for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2). The deficient practice placed the residents of concern and other residents at risk for abuse and maltreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the views and recommendations of the resident group were acted upon, and the response and rationale communicated back to the resident group. The failed practice had the potential to affect the quality of life and health status of some residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to safely secure hazardous items and medications. The deficient practice had the potential to increase concerns about resident safety within the facility and potential harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to 1) knock on resident room doors for 2 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 55 and 109), 2) ensure staff were not standing during feeding assistance for 1 unsampled resident (Resident 69) and 3) appropriately transport a resident from the shower room for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 2). The deficient practices had the potential to compromise dignity, impact the residents' sense of well-being and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed for self-administration of medication for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 114). The deficient practice had the potential to lead to medication errors impacting the well-being of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents were notified through postings in prominent locations throughout the facility, of the right to file a grievance with, and contact information for the pertinent state agency. The deficient practice had the potential to result in a resident having an unresolved grievance. The facility policy and procedure titled Grievance/Complaint Reporting, dated 06/01/2023, indicated the facility would provide the name, address and telephone number of state advocacy groups and information on how to file a grievance. On 08/30/23 at 2:31 PM, five out of five residents in a group interview stated they did not know they could file a grievance with the state agency. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was obtained or transcribed, and consent for the resident's transitioning to a secured unit was granted for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 104). This deficient practice could potentially have led to resident's frustration, isolation, depression, emotional distress, a reduced quality of life, and a decline in their overall well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was initiated for a resident who was admitted with an indwelling catheter for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 132). The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for receiving inappropriate catheter care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a compression stocking was applied to treat edema as ordered for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 104). This deficient practice placed the resident at risk of exacerbation of the resident's condition and could have compromised their overall health management.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate indwelling catheter care was provided and physician's orders were followed for 2 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 132 and 116). The deficient practice potentially resulted in a urinary tract infection (UTI) for Resident 132 and placed Resident 116 at risk for urethral trauma.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's midline intravenous dressing change was performed in accordance with facility policy and physician's orders for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 130). 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 the Oxygen (O2) order was followed for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 91). This deficient practice could lead to serious health complications, incorrect dosages, or adverse reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a pain medication was not administered late for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 101). This deficient practice placed the resident at risk for inadequate pain relief, potential discomfort and compromised quality of life. Resident 101 (R101) R101 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle spasm and fibromyalgia. The Brief Interview of Mental Status dated 06/13/2023, documented a score of 15/15, which meant R101's cognitive status was intact. On 08/29/2023 at 8:58 AM, R101 indicated they endured pain due to having fibromyalgia and their scheduled muscle relaxer medication was sometimes administered late which made them feel frustrated. R101's medical record revealed a physician had an order on dated 03/13/2023 for Tizanidine HCL tablet, four milligrams (mg); [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1) dialysis communication records were completed for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 130) and 2) an agreement was obtained with the dialysis provider for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 130) and one unsampled resident (Resident 343). The deficient practice potentially placed the residents at risk for improper coordination of care between the facility and the dialysis provider.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a sufficient supply of a prescribed medication for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident 124). The deficient practice resulted in an omitted dose and placed the resident at risk for hypertension.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of five percent (%) or greater for three unsampled residents (Residents 32, 3 and 124). The deficient practice placed residents at risk for medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable, attractive, and served at an appetizing temperature when hot cereal was prepared and served with a solid consistency rather than the customary semi-liquid consistency; and not served at an appetizing temperature (too cold), for one sampled resident (Resident 89) and two unsampled residents. The deficient practice had the potential to decrease the amount of nutrients consumed by residents, and also the resident's perception of their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from the active medications and discarded for 4 of 4 medication rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1) expired items were discarded, 2) opened food items were labeled and dated, 3) cleanliness of the kitchen, 4) Ice build-up in the freezers, 5) kitchen logs were completed, 6) dishwasher was at correct temperature, 7) food items were covered during meal delivery, and 8) food temperatures were taken prior to meal service.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's dignity and privacy by not covering a urinary catheter drainage bag for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 116).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review the facility failed to 1) report a resident's COVID positive status, 2) room change and 3) change in condition to the family for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 275).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure employees contracted through an internet-based app that links healthcare workers with available shifts in healthcare facilities were screened for criminal background and job references and received abuse and neglect training prior being allowed to work alone with residents for 5 of 12 reviewed personnel files (Employee 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan for a nutritional concern for 2 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 59 and Resident 106).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a shower or bed bath was provided as scheduled for 2 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 422 and Resident 428).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the intravenous (IV) antibiotic medication to treat a leg infection was administered as ordered for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 116).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure heel protection devices were applied to prevent pressure ulcer for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 172).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to provide restorative services for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 93).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a power cord was safely plugged-in to prevent a tripping hazard for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was appropriately assessed for the use of a Foley catheter, a physician order was obtained, and urine output was monitored for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 116).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to 1) provide nutritional assessments for 2 of 33 sampled residents (Residents 106 and 422), and 2) Registered Dietitian (RD) recommendations were communicated to the physician and processed for 2 of 33 sampled residents (Residents 59 and Resident 106).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure an intravenous (IV) midline dressing was changed within 24 hours upon insertion and weekly thereafter per policy for 2 of 33 sampled residents (Residents 116 and 422).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to monitor the resident's pain level for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 422).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility 1) failed to complete necessary dialysis communication records and 2) ensure dialysis related medication was administered per physician orders for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 53).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications were available during medication pass to ensure timely administration per policy for 2 of 33 sampled residents (Residents 116 and 43).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure their medication error rate was not five percent or greater when four errors were identified with 29 opportunities observed calculating an error rate of 13.79%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a residents food allergy was honored and not served for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident 422).
36 fire safety citations on file: 16 on August 31, 2023, 12 on June 21, 2022, 8 on November 1, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 24, 2026 | Fine | $11,151 |
| December 11, 2025 | Fine | $35,311 |
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) | 3.01 | 4.34 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 1.12 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.75 | 3.86 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.83 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.59 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 43.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.31 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 3.12 on weekdays and 2.75 on weekends, 12% 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 3.79 in April to June 2025 to 3.01 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 | 3.01 | 0.59 | 3.12 | 2.75 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 137 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.77 | 0.50 | 3.93 | 3.38 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 139 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.79 | 0.65 | 3.93 | 3.42 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 138 |
| 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 | 16.9 | 12.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.7 | 13.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 5.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 30.9 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.3 | 23.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.6 | 9.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Willow Haven Health and Rehab, LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (32.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
32.0% 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. 84 eligible stays.
13.6% 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. 182 eligible stays.
8.1% 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. 87 eligible stays.
45.3% 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. 64 residents counted.
1.0% 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. 103 residents counted.
4.3% 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. 103 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. 19 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: WILLOW HAVEN HEALTH AND REHAB LLC. CMS links this home to The Charly Bello Family, the Maze Family, the Swain Family, & Walter Myers, a group of 20 nursing homes averaging 1.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Get Smart Family Limited Partnership | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 25% | 09/23/2025 |
| Sellers, Randy | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 24% | 09/23/2025 |
| Myers, Walter | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/23/2025 | |
| Cottonwood Healthcare LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/02/2026 | |
| Professional Business Advisors LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/02/2026 | |
| Slattery & Holman P.C. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/02/2026 | |
| Abbott, Ian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2026 | |
| Le, Khoa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2026 | |
| Myers, Walter | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2026 | |
| Spiker, Damoniesha | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2026 | |
| Cottonwood Healthcare LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2026 | |
| Professional Business Advisors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2026 | |
| Slattery & Holman P.C. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2026 | |
| Willow Haven Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/02/2026 | |
| Abbott, Ian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/02/2026 | |
| Le, Khoa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/02/2026 | |
| Myers, Walter | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/02/2026 | |
| Spiker, Damoniesha | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/02/2026 |
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.