Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around April 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Haven Of Camp Verde during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Daily staff postings were not accurately updated to show the actual number of RN, LPN, and CNA staff who worked each shift or the actual hours worked. Review of multiple postings showed only scheduled hours, while the actual hours from punch details were left blank. The staffing coordinator, receptionist, DON, and executive director each stated they were not responsible for or were unaware of the need to update the postings with actual staffing information.
Failure to protect a resident from sexual abuse by another resident. A cognitively intact resident with significant ADL needs and wheelchair use was sharing a semi-private room with another resident who had a BIMS score indicating intact cognition and no documented behaviors toward others. A staff member responding to a call light observed the roommate touching the resident’s genital area and inside his brief under a blanket; the resident said he did not want to be touched, and the facility’s investigation substantiated resident-to-resident abuse.
A resident with dementia, anxiety, diabetes, and exit-seeking behaviors was placed on a Wander Guard for elopement monitoring, but the device was used without a physician order. The resident later left the facility, was found across from a gas station, and the record showed the Wander Guard did not alarm when the resident exited; the RN, DON, and ED confirmed an order was required before application.
Failure to Prevent Elopement for Two Residents: Two residents with documented dementia, cognitive impairment, and wandering or exit-seeking behaviors were identified as elopement risks and had Wander Guards in place, yet each was found outside the facility unsupervised. One resident was located near a gas station after leaving without an alarm sounding, and another was reported by a community member walking along a road before staff found and returned the resident.
A resident with multiple medical conditions, impaired cognition, and existing skin issues was ordered to receive weekly complete skin checks and was care planned for regular skin inspections during routine care and per bath schedule. Facility records showed only one documented skin assessment over several weeks, despite the standing order and care plan interventions. The resident was scheduled for twice-weekly showers, but documentation reflected only two showers during the review period, with large gaps where no showers were recorded. An LPN and the interim DON confirmed that weekly skin assessments were not documented as required, and a CNA reported that although the resident was on the shower schedule, she did not provide any showers and that shower sheets for this resident could not be located. These actions and omissions did not follow facility ADL and bathing policies, which require provision of hygiene care and skin observation during showers.
A resident with multiple medical and psychiatric conditions, including epilepsy and recent seizure activity, was admitted with an advance directive and physician order specifying full code status and desire for CPR. On the day of the incident, the resident was last documented as well during morning rounds and later was found on the floor of his room, unresponsive and not breathing. Staff interviews, a 911 call transcript, and a police report showed that no CPR was in progress when the emergency call was made, no AED was brought to the room, and officers found the resident cold to the touch but without rigor mortis. The DON gave conflicting accounts about whether CPR was initiated, while other staff reported they did not see CPR performed, and there was no clinical documentation of CPR or AED use despite facility policy requiring immediate and continuous CPR/BLS for unresponsive full‑code individuals until EMS arrival. These actions and omissions resulted in the resident not receiving ordered life‑saving measures.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was physically struck by his roommate, who was cognitively intact at the time. The incident was witnessed by a CNA, who described the contact as aggressive, but the event was not properly documented in the clinical record, and no immediate medical assessment or provider notification occurred. This failure to follow required procedures for reporting and responding to abuse allegations resulted in a deficiency.
A resident with cognitive impairment was physically struck by a roommate after calling for help, with a CNA witnessing the aggressive contact. Despite facility policy requiring immediate investigation, monitoring, and documentation for suspected abuse, the clinical record lacked evidence of these actions, and the incident was not substantiated as abuse by administration, resulting in a failure to implement the abuse policy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions was admitted and re-admitted without a baseline care plan being developed within 48 hours, as required by facility policy. The absence of this care plan meant staff lacked documented instructions to address the resident's impaired cognition and immediate needs.
After a physical altercation between two residents, the facility failed to document the incident, post-incident monitoring, provider notification, and injury assessment in the affected resident's medical record, as required by policy. This omission was confirmed by staff interviews and review of the clinical record.
A resident with multiple health conditions did not receive showering assistance according to her preferences and facility policy. Despite the facility's policy to offer showers twice weekly, the resident reported infrequent showers. Coordination issues between the facility and hospice staff, including staffing shortages and unclear responsibilities, contributed to the deficiency.
The facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff on a 24-hour basis as per their facility assessment. On multiple sampled dates in November and December 2023, the facility did not meet the required staffing levels, with eight shifts having only one licensed nurse and three shifts having only one CNA. The DON confirmed that a CMA should not be counted as a CNA, yet the staffing schedule often included one licensed nurse, one CMA, and two CNAs, leading to the deficiency.
The facility failed to ensure that the nurse staffing information was accurately posted on a daily basis, omitting the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff. A review of the daily staff postings for November and December 2023 revealed this deficiency, which was confirmed during an interview with the Administrator.
The facility failed to submit accurate staffing information to CMS, as revealed by a review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report. The facility was flagged for low weekend staffing across multiple fiscal quarters, and it was discovered that staff were missing hours in their pay period due to a possible software issue.
Daily Staff Postings Not Updated With Actual Staffing Hours
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that daily staff postings were posted accurately to reflect the actual number of licensed and unlicensed staff who worked each shift and the actual hours worked by RN, LPN, and CNA staff. Review of 17 randomly selected daily staff postings and corresponding punch details showed that the postings did not include updated actual staffing information for any of the days reviewed. The census during the review period was 43 residents. For the daily staff posting dated October 26, 2024, the posting showed a census of 44 residents and listed scheduled staffing hours of 40 RN hours, 16 LPN hours, and 64 CNA hours, but the column for actual hours worked was left blank. Punch details for that day showed 23.75 RN hours, 30.87 LPN hours, and 69.36 CNA hours. Similar omissions were identified on the other reviewed dates, including November 2, 2024; November 30, 2024; December 14, 2024; December 28, 2024; April 5, 2025; April 19, 2025; May 17, 2025; May 25, 2025; June 7, 2025; June 22, 2025; July 5, 2025; July 19, 2025; August 16, 2025; August 23, 2025; September 13, 2025; and September 21, 2025. In each instance, the posting included scheduled staffing hours, but the actual hours worked were not entered. Interviews showed that the staffing coordinator created the schedule and provided it to the receptionist, who completed the daily staff posting. The receptionist stated she had not been trained to update the posting throughout the day and had never been informed that the posting needed to include the actual number of staff who worked and the actual hours worked. The DON stated she was not responsible for overseeing the daily staff posting but said the actual hours should be updated and reviewed one posting with punch details, stating there may not have been enough staff on that day to meet resident needs. The executive director stated she was unaware that the actual number of staff and hours worked needed to be updated on the posting and had never seen an updated daily staff posting.
Failure to Protect a Resident from Sexual Abuse by Another Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect one resident from resident-to-resident sexual abuse when a staff member observed another resident touching the resident’s genital area and inside the resident’s brief. The resident who was touched was admitted with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, morbid obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. His MDS showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating he was cognitively intact, and he required assistance from two staff members for dressing, personal hygiene, and toilet use, using a wheelchair for mobility. The resident who touched him was readmitted with diagnoses including COPD, CKD, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and insomnia. His MDS showed a BIMS score of 14, indicating he was cognitively intact, and it documented no behaviors directed toward others and no evidence of psychosis during the assessment period. The two residents began sharing a semi-private room, and during the incident a staff member entered the room in response to a call light and observed the resident touching his roommate inappropriately under the blanket and in the genital area. Facility documentation stated that the staff member shouted for the resident to stop, and the resident was moved to a private room. Interviews and the facility’s investigation substantiated the allegation of resident-to-resident abuse. The victim stated that he did not ask to be touched and did not want to be touched, and he was too embarrassed to tell his wife. The facility policy defined abuse as the willful infliction of injury, intimidation, or punishment resulting in physical harm, pain, or mental anguish, and defined sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident.
Wander Guard Used Without Physician Order
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure care and treatment were provided in accordance with physician orders for one resident with diagnoses including unspecified dementia without behavioral, psychotic, or mood disturbance; anxiety; type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy and foot ulcer; alcohol abuse; and acquired absence of another left toe. The resident had a BIMS score of 12, reflecting moderate cognitive impairment, and was documented as being at risk for elopement with ongoing exit-seeking behaviors. Progress notes showed that a functioning Wander Guard was in place and staff were closely monitoring and redirecting the resident due to wandering risk. After the resident was found missing from the facility and later located across from a gas station on Route 260, the record documented that the resident was wearing a Wander Guard, but no alarm sounded when the resident exited. Review of the clinical record showed there was no hospital order or physician order for the Wander Guard before it was used; the physician order authorizing the device was not entered until after the incident. Interviews with the RN, DON, and ED confirmed that a physician's order was required before applying a Wander Guard and that the resident had been identified as at risk for wandering or elopement.
Failure to Prevent Elopement for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate assessment, monitoring, and supervision to prevent elopement for two residents who were identified as being at risk for wandering. Both residents had diagnoses and assessments showing significant cognitive impairment and documented exit-seeking or wandering behaviors, and both had Wander Guards in place at the time of their incidents. Resident #77 was admitted with diagnoses including unspecified dementia, anxiety, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy and foot ulcer, alcohol abuse, and acquired absence of another left toe. An admission MDS assessment showed a BIMS score of 12, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Progress notes documented that the resident remained at risk for elopement, had a functioning Wander Guard, and required close monitoring and frequent redirection because of ongoing exit-seeking behaviors. Despite this, the resident was later discovered missing from the facility and found on the side of Route 260 across from a gas station. The record stated that the resident was wearing a Wander Guard, but no alarm sounded when the resident exited the facility. Resident #71 was re-admitted with diagnoses including insomnia, palliative care, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, hypertension with chronic kidney disease, urinary incontinence, and history of falling. An admission MDS assessment showed a BIMS score of 3, reflecting severe cognitive impairment. The resident’s elopement risk evaluation identified the resident as at risk for elopement, and the care plan addressed exit-seeking behaviors and use of a Wander Guard. A progress note documented that a community member reported seeing a confused woman walking along Salt Mine Road, and staff then determined that Resident #71 was missing from the unit. The resident was located and returned to the facility, and the record documented that the Wander Guard was in place and functioning on the resident’s ankle at the time of the incident.
Failure to Provide Ordered Weekly Skin Assessments and Scheduled Showers for One Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide activities of daily living (ADL) care, including bathing and required skin assessments, to one resident in accordance with physician orders, the care plan, and facility policy. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including a right femur fracture, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, muscle weakness, and right knee osteoarthritis, and had a BIMS score of 8 indicating moderately impaired cognition. On admission, the resident had a red coccyx, a thigh rash, and a scab on the right knee, and an order dated January 16, 2026, required a complete weekly skin check. The care plan identified the resident as at risk for functional self-care deficits and skin impairment, with interventions including skin inspection during routine care and per bath schedule, and monitoring for redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, bruises, and reporting changes to the nurse. Record review showed that only one skin assessment was documented on January 16, 2026, with no evidence of any weekly skin assessments from January 17 through February 11, 2026, despite the standing order. A Braden scale assessment on January 30, 2026, documented that the resident’s skin was occasionally moist, and a Braden scale on February 9, 2026, documented skin occasionally moist, activity chairfast, and mobility slightly limited, but there was no documentation of follow-up weekly skin assessments or of the previously noted coccyx redness after January 16. The interim DON confirmed that there was only one documented weekly skin assessment despite the order, and the LPN stated she was not aware until February 16 that LPNs were responsible for weekly skin assessments. Both the LPN and DON acknowledged that weekly skin assessments were expected and that the previous DON had followed up with nurses on resident skin assessments. The facility’s shower schedule indicated the resident was to receive showers twice weekly on the evening shift, and the CNA reported the resident was scheduled for showers every Tuesday and Friday, with an option for Sunday if preferred. However, shower documentation showed only two showers provided, on January 30 and February 7, 2026, with no evidence of showers from January 16 through January 29, from February 1 through February 6, and from February 8 through February 11, 2026. The CNA stated she did not provide any showers to this resident and that during showers, staff were expected to assess skin and document any skin conditions or refusals on shower sheets, which nurses would review and sign. The LPN reported she could not locate the resident’s shower sheets in the binder. Facility policies on Personal Care: ADLs and Bathing and Showers required that appropriate hygiene care be provided per the plan of care and that showers be used as an opportunity to observe and document the condition of the resident’s skin, but the documented care for this resident did not meet these requirements.
Failure to Provide CPR and AED Use for Full-Code Resident Found Unresponsive
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide life‑saving measures, including CPR and use of an AED, to a resident with full code status who was found unresponsive. The resident had multiple medical and psychiatric diagnoses, including pneumonia due to pseudomonas, osteomyelitis, bacteremia, autistic disorder, bipolar disorder, mood disorder, epilepsy, and a need for assistance with personal care. An advance directive signed by the resident indicated he wanted CPR if his breathing and heart stopped, along with other life‑prolonging treatments. A physician order dated January 26, 2026, confirmed the resident’s status as full code and indicated CPR was to be provided. In the days prior to the incident, the resident was documented as having behavioral issues, aggressive outbursts, and a fall from bed shortly after an OT evaluation, with staff noting he might not be appropriate for the facility due to the need for 1:1 care. The resident was also identified as a high fall risk and had a witnessed seizure lasting about 50 seconds on January 25, 2026, after which neurological checks were initiated and the DON and a provider were notified. On the morning of January 26, 2026, facility self‑report documentation indicated the resident received medications around 7:00 a.m., breakfast at 8:30 a.m., and was checked at 9:30 a.m., at which time he was reportedly well. Around late morning, a CNA delivering lunch found the resident on the floor and notified the DON. Multiple accounts, including the police report, CNA, RN, and corporate clinical resource nurse interviews, and the 911 call transcript, consistently indicated that when staff found the resident unresponsive and not breathing, CPR was not being performed. The 911 operator twice asked if CPR was in progress, and the staff member replied that no one was doing CPR and stated the resident was deceased. The police report documented that upon arrival, officers found the resident on the floor, unresponsive, cold to the touch, with a small laceration on the back of the head and dried blood on the floor, and noted that rigor mortis had not yet set in. The report also described the fall mats as not in use as claimed and the bed as freshly made, suggesting inconsistencies with the account that the resident had fallen from bed. The DON gave conflicting statements, at one point telling police that CPR was not initiated, and at another time stating she began life‑saving measures but believed the resident was beyond help and did not move him to a flat position on the floor. The corporate clinical resource nurse reported that the DON later said she performed a sternal rub, checked for a pulse, and attempted only two chest compressions before stopping because the chest felt “mushy.” Other staff present, including the CNA who discovered the resident and the RN who assessed him, stated they did not observe CPR being performed at any time. There was no documentation in the clinical record of CPR being initiated, no evidence that an AED was brought to or used in the room, and no documentation of the head laceration noted by police. Facility policy required that licensed staff certified in CPR/BLS initiate CPR for an unresponsive individual not breathing normally unless a DNR order existed or there were obvious signs of irreversible death, and that CPR and BLS, including AED use, be continued until emergency medical personnel arrived. These actions were not carried out for this full‑code resident. The facility’s policy on documenting death required that all information pertaining to a resident’s death, including time of death and the name and title of the individual pronouncing death, be recorded in the nurse’s notes, and that the attending physician document the cause of death. The record contained an e‑MAR note indicating the resident was deceased and an MDS death in facility assessment, as well as a vital records form listing a time of death, but there was no contemporaneous nursing documentation of CPR attempts or detailed description of the circumstances of death consistent with policy. The combination of staff failure to initiate and maintain CPR and use an AED for a full‑code resident, conflicting staff accounts, lack of documentation of life‑saving measures, and discrepancies between the physical scene and staff descriptions formed the basis of the cited deficiency.
Failure to Protect Resident from Physical Abuse by Another Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse by another resident. The incident involved a resident with severe cognitive impairment who was calling for help, which disturbed his roommate. The roommate, who was cognitively intact at the time, moved across the room and made physical contact with the resident, striking him on the chest and head. This event was witnessed by a CNA, who described the contact as aggressive and stated that the resident was struck with a backhanded motion on the chin and then on the top of the head. The CNA immediately intervened and separated the residents. The clinical record review revealed that there was no documentation of the incident in the resident's record, no notification to the medical provider, and no assessment for injury following the incident. Although both residents were later assessed and found to have no visible injuries, the initial lack of documentation and assessment represented a failure to follow required procedures for reporting and responding to abuse allegations. Interviews with staff confirmed that the incident was reported verbally, but the necessary documentation and immediate medical evaluation were not completed as required. The facility's policy defines abuse as the infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment resulting in physical harm, pain, or mental anguish, and requires prompt reporting and investigation. Despite the policy, the facility did not substantiate the incident as abuse due to a perceived lack of evidence, even though a staff member witnessed aggressive physical contact. The absence of proper documentation and immediate assessment after the incident contributed to the deficiency.
Failure to Implement Abuse Policy Following Resident-to-Resident Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy following an incident involving two residents, one of whom had significant cognitive and medical impairments, including dementia and a cognitive communication deficit. On the date of the incident, one resident was calling for help, which agitated his roommate. The roommate physically interacted with the resident, making contact with his chest and head. A CNA witnessed the event, describing the contact as aggressive, with the resident being struck on the chin and head. The CNA intervened, separated the residents, and reported the incident to nursing and administrative staff. Despite the facility's policy requiring immediate notification, monitoring, alert charting, and assessment for injury following any suspected abuse, the clinical record lacked documentation of the incident, monitoring, alert charting, notification to the medical provider, or assessment for injury for the resident involved. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistent interpretations of the event, with the CNA describing it as aggressive and the administrator characterizing the contact as unintentional and not abusive. The facility ultimately did not substantiate the incident as abuse, citing a lack of evidence, despite direct witness testimony to the contrary. The facility's abuse policy outlined specific steps to be taken when abuse is witnessed or suspected, including immediate investigation, notification of relevant parties, and monitoring of the resident. However, these procedures were not followed as required, as evidenced by the absence of documentation and monitoring in the resident's clinical record after the incident. This failure to implement the abuse policy constituted a deficiency that could lead to harm for residents.
Failure to Develop Baseline Care Plan for Resident with Severe Cognitive Impairment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for a resident who was admitted and later re-admitted with multiple diagnoses, including cognitive communication deficit, pressure ulcer of the sacrum, laceration of the right foot with a foreign body, and unspecified dementia. The resident's admission MDS assessment indicated a BIMS score of 6, reflecting severe cognitive impairment. Despite these significant health concerns, there was no evidence that a baseline care plan was created to address the resident's impaired cognition. Interviews and record reviews confirmed that the facility's policy requires a baseline care plan to be developed within 48 hours of admission to address immediate health and safety needs, including instructions for person-centered care. The DON acknowledged that impaired cognition and dementia are always risk factors for abuse and should be included in care planning to ensure staff awareness and appropriate care. However, the absence of a baseline care plan meant that staff did not have documented guidance to address the resident's cognitive impairment upon admission.
Incomplete Documentation Following Resident-to-Resident Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the medical record for one resident was complete and accurate following an incident involving resident-to-resident physical contact. The incident occurred when one resident, who had diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, pressure ulcer, laceration, and dementia, was physically struck by his roommate after a verbal disagreement. The event was witnessed by a CNA, who intervened and reported the incident to nursing and administrative staff. However, there was no documentation in the clinical record describing the incident, evidence of monitoring or alert charting, notification to the medical provider, or assessment for injury following the event. Interviews with staff confirmed that the required post-incident assessments and notifications were not documented as per facility policy, which mandates that all services, changes in condition, and notifications be recorded in the resident's medical record. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the initiation of 15-minute checks was missed and that documentation of assessments and notifications should have been completed in the risk management and progress notes. The lack of documentation could result in care team members being unaware of the resident's status and missing or delaying necessary treatment.
Failure to Provide Showering Assistance as Per Resident Preference
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received showering assistance according to the facility policy and the resident's preferences. The resident, who was readmitted with multiple diagnoses including pulmonary hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and dementia, expressed dissatisfaction with the care plan that provided only bed baths instead of showers. The resident's care plan did not specifically address her preference for showers, and documentation revealed inconsistencies in the provision of showers over several months. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Vice President of Clinical Operations, highlighted a lack of clarity and communication regarding the responsibility for providing showers. The facility's policy required showers to be offered twice weekly, but the resident reported not receiving showers as frequently as desired. The hospice company, which was involved in the resident's care, was expected to provide showers once a week, but there were issues with staffing and coordination between the hospice and facility staff. The hospice executive director noted that the resident required two staff members for safe showering due to safety concerns, but the hospice often sent only one staff member, relying on the facility to provide additional assistance. This lack of coordination and communication between the facility and hospice staff resulted in the resident not receiving showers as per her preference and the facility's policy, leading to a deficiency in the quality of care provided to the resident.
Insufficient Nursing Staff on Night Shifts
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff on a 24-hour basis as per their facility assessment. The assessment indicated that there should be two licensed nurses per shift and a specific number of CNAs for each shift. However, on multiple sampled dates in November and December 2023, the facility did not meet these staffing requirements. Specifically, there were eight shifts with only one licensed nurse and three shifts with only one CNA. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the expectation was to have two CNAs scheduled for night shifts and that a Certified Medication Assistant (CMA) should not be counted as a CNA. Despite this, the staffing schedule often included one licensed nurse, one CMA, and two CNAs, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Accurately Post Nurse Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the nurse staffing information was accurately posted on a daily basis, which included the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff. A review of the sampled daily staff postings for November and December of 2023 revealed they did not contain the total actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff. During an interview with the Administrator on December 7, 2023, it was noted that the actual hours worked were not on the daily staff postings. The facility's Staffing Policy requires that the Daily Posted Staffing Schedule must include the total number and the actual number of hours worked by Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, and Certified Nurse Aides per shift.
Inaccurate Staffing Information Submission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to submit accurate staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format to CMS. A review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report run on November 30, 2023, revealed that the facility was flagged for excessively low weekend staffing for multiple fiscal quarters spanning from July 2022 to June 2023. During the review of sampled staff postings for November and December 2023 with the Regional Support Nurse and the Regional President, it was discovered that the facility was not accurately reporting hours to CMS. Staff were missing hours in their pay period, which was attributed to a possible software issue.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 21 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Camp Verde
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haven Of Cottonwood | 15.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Haven Of Sedona | 16.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 20 | 0 |
| Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation | 26.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Mountain View Manor | 34.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Prescott Village Nursing & Rehabilitation | 34.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 18 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Haven Of Camp Verde.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.