Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of August 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with intact cognition requested copies of his personal and medical records, and the facility did not provide them within the required timeframe. The request was routed through Social Services and Medical Records, but staff reported delays because the medical records role had been unfilled and the request was not handled promptly. The records were ultimately released about a month after the resident’s written request, far beyond the timeframe described by staff and the facility’s guide.
Failure to Document and Address a Resident Fall: A resident with a hx of repeated falls, impaired mobility, and moderate fall risk had an assisted sit to the floor while being ambulated to the shower room. Although the provider documented the event and later back pain, the record lacked nursing documentation, post-fall assessments, care plan revision, and related progress notes. The DON and NP both confirmed the fall occurred and stated the chart did not contain the expected fall documentation.
The facility failed to protect residents from all forms of abuse and neglect, including physical, mental, and sexual abuse, as well as physical punishment, by any individual.
The facility did not have effective policies and procedures in place to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. Documentation and interviews showed that staff were not consistently trained or made aware of the necessary steps to prevent and report such incidents, and there was no evidence of regular audits or monitoring for compliance.
The facility did not promptly report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft, nor did it communicate the results of its investigation to the proper authorities as required.
A deficiency was cited when an area of the facility was not kept free from accident hazards and adequate supervision was not provided to prevent accidents. The environment and supervision protocols were found to be insufficient to minimize accident risks.
A resident with multiple diagnoses and a high fall risk was admitted without a baseline care plan being developed and implemented within 48 hours, as required. Despite several documented falls and near-falls, the baseline care plan was not initiated until several days after admission, and staff interviews confirmed the delay and lack of adherence to facility policy.
The facility failed to update care plans for three residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. One resident had no care plan for behaviors or psychotropic medication use, another had no care plan for UTI or antibiotic use, and a third had no care plan for oxygen use. Staff interviews revealed that the LPN responsible for care plans was behind on updates, and the DON confirmed the oversight.
The facility failed to allow two residents to choose their bedtime, violating their rights to self-determination. Both residents reported that a staff member forced them to go to bed despite their objections. The facility's investigation could not substantiate the abuse claims, but the staff member received counseling on bedside manners and resident rights.
The facility failed to complete required Level I PASRR screenings for two residents with significant mental health diagnoses and medication changes. The Social Services Director confirmed that the necessary screenings were not conducted, violating facility policy and state regulations.
Delay in Providing Resident Medical Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident #82 was provided copies of his personal and medical records within the required timeframe after he made a written request. Resident #82 was admitted with diagnoses including lack of coordination, difficulty walking, weakness, anemia, repeated falls, shortness of breath, hyperkalemia, hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, and adult failure to thrive. A Medicare 5-Day MDS showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. A HIPAA medical release form in the record showed that he requested copies of his entire medical record and authorized his daughter/POA to receive them. The medical records request tracking log showed that Resident #82 made the request on April 15, 2026. The log further showed follow-up email activity in mid-May, an invoice on May 18, 2026, and release of the records on May 19, 2026. An email from the daughter/POA stated that her father had requested the records almost a month earlier and that they had not received a response or the records. The daughter/POA later stated in interview that the request was made by her father and that the records were not released until May 18, 2026. Staff interviews showed that the request was not handled promptly. Social Services stated she was helping with medical records requests before the facility hired someone for the position and that she sent requests to regional medical records personnel when she had time. The Medical Records Director stated that no one had been doing the medical records job for about 2 months before she filled the position, that the required timeframe was 10 days, and that this request was not fulfilled until about 1 month and 4 days after it was made. The Administrator stated that the resident’s request should have been fulfilled within 24 hours, but it was not completed until May 19, 2026. The facility also stated it did not have a specific medical records policy, and the only guide available stated that personal requests for active residents must be completed within 24 hours of receipt.
Failure to Document and Address a Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident #82 received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident’s choices after an assisted sit to the floor occurred while he was being ambulated to the shower room. Resident #82 was admitted with diagnoses including lack of coordination, difficulty walking, weakness, anemia, repeated falls, history of falling, shortness of breath, hyperkalemia, hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, and adult failure to thrive. His admission fall risk evaluation identified him as a moderate fall risk, with a history of falls, chair-bound status, and balance problems while standing, walking, and sitting. The MDS also reflected repeated falls and a history of falling, and the resident had intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15. After the assisted sit to the floor, the provider documented that the resident initially had no obvious injuries, but later complained of back pain and X-rays were ordered. The record showed orders for pain management, including methocarbamol and acetaminophen, and the thoracic spine X-ray showed no fracture, with mild osteopenia and spondylosis. However, the clinical record contained no evidence that nursing staff documented the fall, completed risk management, change in condition, skin, pain, fall, or therapy assessments, or revised the care plan to address the fall event. There was also no evidence of a fall-related care plan focus or interventions in the resident’s record. Interviews with the resident’s daughter, the DON, the CNA, and the NP confirmed that the event occurred and that staff recognized it as a fall or assisted sit to the floor. The DON stated that a fall included an assisted sit onto the floor and that staff were expected to complete multiple assessments, notify the family, DON, and physician, and update the care plan after a fall. The DON later confirmed that Resident #82 did have a fall on the unit, but that no assessments, progress notes, or care plan revision were completed, and that the only documentation was the NP note. The NP also stated that there was no documentation in the record about the fall aside from her own note and that she did not know whether the care plan had been updated. The facility policy required post-fall assessment and investigation within 24 hours or as soon as practicable, review of the plan of care, implementation of new interventions as appropriate, and revision of the plan as indicated.
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse and Neglect
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified regarding the facility's failure to protect each resident from all types of abuse, including physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by any individual. The report documents that residents were not adequately safeguarded from these forms of mistreatment, indicating lapses in the facility's responsibility to ensure resident safety and well-being. No specific details about the residents involved, their medical history, or their condition at the time of the deficiency are provided in the report.
Failure to Implement Policies Preventing Abuse, Neglect, and Theft
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement effective policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. This deficiency was identified through review of facility documentation and interviews, which revealed that the required policies and procedures were either not in place or not adequately enforced. As a result, the facility did not ensure that staff were consistently trained or aware of the necessary steps to prevent and report incidents of abuse, neglect, or theft involving residents. Surveyors found that the lack of comprehensive policies and procedures contributed to an environment where potential incidents could occur without proper prevention or timely intervention. There was no evidence provided that staff received regular training or that the facility conducted routine audits to monitor compliance with abuse, neglect, and theft prevention protocols.
Failure to Timely Report Suspected Abuse, Neglect, or Theft
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and did not report the results of the investigation to the proper authorities. This deficiency was identified based on the facility's lack of prompt action in notifying the appropriate agencies when an incident of suspected abuse, neglect, or theft occurred. The report indicates that the required notifications and investigation results were not communicated as mandated.
Failure to Maintain Accident-Free Environment and Provide Adequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified due to the failure to ensure that a specific area within the facility was free from accident hazards and that adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents. The report notes that the environment was not maintained in a manner that would minimize the risk of accidents, and supervision protocols were insufficient to prevent such incidents from occurring. No additional details regarding the specific individuals involved, their medical history, or their condition at the time of the deficiency are provided in the report.
Failure to Timely Develop Baseline Care Plan for Newly Admitted Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including neurocognitive disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, and a recent fracture. Upon admission, the resident was identified as being at high risk for falls, as documented in a Fall Risk Evaluation. Despite this, there was no evidence of a baseline care plan being completed within the required timeframe. Multiple progress notes over several days documented incidents where the resident attempted to get out of bed unassisted, resulting in falls or near-falls, with interventions such as fall mats and bed positioning being used, but without a formalized care plan guiding staff actions during this critical initial period. Interviews with facility staff, including the ADON, SSD, and DON, confirmed that the baseline care plan was not initiated until several days after admission, contrary to facility policy and regulatory requirements. Staff acknowledged that the baseline care plan is essential for communication and coordination among the interdisciplinary team and should be completed within 48 hours to ensure appropriate interventions are in place. The facility's policy also specifies the development of a person-centered baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Update Care Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that care plans were updated for three residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #18, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including acute respiratory failure, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, had an order for Paroxetine for major depression disorder. However, there was no care plan for behaviors or the use of psychotropic medications. Resident #25, admitted with conditions such as dystonia, fibromyalgia, and post-traumatic stress disorder, had an order for Bactrim DS for a urinary tract infection, but no care plan for UTI or antibiotic use was noted. Resident #149, with diagnoses including congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus type 2, had an order for oxygen use due to hypoxia related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but no care plan for oxygen use was documented. Interviews with staff revealed that the LPN responsible for MDS duties and care plans admitted to being behind on updating care plans, resulting in the oversight. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the care plans were not completed and acknowledged that the oversight was not intentional but due to the LPN being new in her position. The facility's policy requires an ongoing method of assessing, implementing, evaluating, and updating the resident's care plan to maintain the resident's highest practicable level of function, which was not adhered to in these cases.
Violation of Resident Bedtime Choices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two residents were allowed to choose their bedtime, violating their rights to self-determination and personal choice. Resident #30, who is cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 13, reported that staff member #47 forced her to go to bed and was rough with her legs. The resident stated that she had initially requested assistance to go to bed but changed her mind, and staff #47 grabbed her wrist and forced her into bed despite her objections. The facility's investigation could not substantiate the abuse claim, but it was noted that the staff member received counseling on bedside manners and resident rights. Similarly, Resident #28, who has a BIMS score of 13 indicating mild cognitive impairment, reported that staff #47 also forced her to go to bed. The resident had requested warm milk but was told by staff #47 that she needed to go to bed to receive it. When the resident decided she was not ready for bed, staff #47 moved her legs and pushed her towards the bed despite her protests. The facility's investigation also could not substantiate this abuse claim, but the staff member received counseling on bedside manners and resident rights. Both residents have medical conditions that include depression and trouble sleeping, which makes their ability to choose their bedtime particularly important. The facility's policy on abuse and neglect emphasizes the importance of respecting resident rights, but the actions of staff #47 in these instances did not align with this policy. The facility's failure to allow these residents to choose their bedtime represents a significant deficiency in respecting resident rights and personal choices.
Failure to Complete Required PASRR Screenings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two residents had a Level I PASRR (pre-admission screening and resident review form) screening. Resident #37 was admitted with a BIMS of 10 and had a diagnosis of Depression, which was later updated to Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder. Despite these significant changes in diagnosis and the addition of medications like Zoloft, no initial or updated Level I PASRR screening was completed. Similarly, Resident #26, who was admitted with a BIMS of 15 and multiple mental health diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder, did not have an initial Level I PASRR screening or any updates when new medications were prescribed. The Social Services Director confirmed these oversights during an interview, acknowledging that the required screenings were not completed as per the facility's policy and state regulations. The facility's policy mandates that all applicants to Medicaid-certified nursing facilities be screened for serious mental disorders and intellectual disabilities through a Level I PASRR screening before admission. Additionally, any new diagnoses or medication changes related to mental disorders should trigger a new Level I PASRR evaluation. However, the facility did not adhere to these guidelines, resulting in the failure to complete the necessary screenings for both residents. This deficiency could potentially lead to residents not receiving the appropriate care and services they need for their mental health conditions.
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 27 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 Prescott Valley
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mountain View Manor | 7.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Granite Creek Health & Rehabilitation Center | 8.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Prescott Village Nursing & Rehabilitation | 8.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 21 | 0 |
| Haven Health Prescott, Llc | 9.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Haven Of Cottonwood | 19.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Prescott Valley Nursing & Rehabilitation.
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 August 2026) and official state health department websites.