See every facility — official ratings, family reviews, no referral fees.
Nursing HomeMedicaid Top Rated

Tempe Post Acute

Strong Medicare quality ratings; families often praise effective physical and occupational therapy. Still worth an in-person visit.

6100 South Rural Road, Kiwanis Park · Tempe, AZ 8528360 bedsLicensed & Active
5/5
Medicare
Inspection
Quality
Staffing
Google rating
4.4/5

based on 441 Google reviews

5
4
3
2
1
Tempe Post Acute Nursing Home in Tempe, AZ — Street View
Street View

Watch Tempe Post Acute

Get an email when new inspections, ratings, or penalties are published for this facility.

We’ll only email you about this — no spam, unsubscribe anytime.

What this means for your family

While the facility offers strong physical therapy, the frequency of reports regarding neglect and slow response times is alarming. If you choose this facility, we strongly recommend daily, unannounced visits to ensure your loved one's basic hygiene and medical needs are being met, as communication from the administrative team is often cited as a major pain point.

Google Reviews

Google Reviews

441 reviews on Google
Tempe Post Acute receives highly polarized feedback, with many reviewers praising the facility for its cleanliness, friendly staff, and effective rehabilitation programs. However, a significant number of families report critical failures in basic patient care, including long response times for call lights, hygiene issues, and poor communication during medical emergencies. Prospective families should weigh the positive experiences of rehab patients against the serious concerns regarding staffing ratios and responsiveness.

Quality Themes

Tap a score for details
Food4.0Staff5.0Clean6.0Activities7.0Meds2.0MemoryN/AComms3.0ValueN/A

Strengths

  • Effective physical and occupational therapy
  • Clean and well-maintained facility
  • Welcoming and professional admissions team
  • Attentive and compassionate individual staff members

Concerns

  • Slow or non-existent response to call lights (mentioned by 9 reviewers)
  • Poor hygiene and lack of assistance with toileting/changing (mentioned by 7 reviewers)
  • Understaffing and high staff turnover (mentioned by 5 reviewers)
  • Poor communication and lack of follow-up from administration (mentioned by 4 reviewers)
  • Inedible or cold food quality (mentioned by 3 reviewers)

Rating Trends

Tap a year to see what changed

2344.92022(60)3.52023(20)3.92024(37)3.92025(38)4.42026(67)

Distribution · 222 analyzed

5
176
4
7
3
2
2
5
1
32
51 reviews posted between Nov 21, 2022Dec 1, 2022 · 50 were 5-star
28 reviews posted between Nov 27, 2022Dec 1, 2022 · 27 were 5-star

How They Respond to Reviews

83%response rate

This facility actively engages with reviewer feedback.

Questions for Your Tour

  • 1We've heard wonderful things about your therapy programs; could you tell us more about how the physical and occupational therapy teams work with residents to regain their independence?
  • 2With such a high CMS rating for health inspections, what specific protocols do you have in place to ensure consistent hygiene and personal care for every resident?
  • 3How does the nursing team manage call lights during shift changes to ensure that residents receive timely assistance with their needs?
  • 4We'd love to know more about the dining experience—how do you ensure meals are served at the right temperature and that the menu stays nutritious and appetizing?
  • 5What is the best way for our family to stay in regular contact with the administration to ensure we are always updated on any changes in our loved one's care?
  • 6Can you describe what a typical day of social activities and engagement looks like for the residents here?

Personalized based on this facility's data


Key Review Excerpts

The nursing staff was great Matthew doten is the best Jeff was awesome Sayre is wonderful and Kari I'm sorry I'm missing some of them John and Anthony are great wound Care nurses the whole pt team was awesome the only thing I can say is the food was cold.

Rehab patient · 2024★★★★

My mother has been there since December 31 had nothing but horrible treatment been ignored wet the bed nobody comes in. I’ve complained to everybody. Nobody does anything.

Family member · 2026☆☆☆☆

The nurses have no emotional regulation and when they get mad they refuse to feed their patients. They also send patients to the hospital without telling the patient's emergency contact.

Family member · 2023☆☆☆☆
Source: 441 Google reviews

Staffing

Staffing Hours

per resident/day · Medicare 2026
RN Hours
0.52hrs
70%
Registered nurses for medical care
Total Nursing
3.52hrs
86%
All nurses + aides combined
Staff Turnover
52%
Lower is better (< 30% = good)
RN Turnover
18%
Lower is better (< 30% = good)

Both RN and total nursing hours are below national benchmarks. This can mean less clinical attention per resident, so ask about their staffing plan.

Quality Measures

Quality Measures

Resident outcomes compared with national, state, and local averages · 17 measures

Medicare Rating
5/ 5
Better Than Avg

10

measures

Worse Than Avg

5

measures

Mixed Results

2

measures

Long-Stay Residents
💊

Residents on antipsychotic medication

↓ Lower is better
This Facility2.0%
Better than Avg
Here
2.0%
US
15.4%
AZ
11.2%
Maricopa
10.7%
🚶

Residents whose walking got worse

↓ Lower is better
This Facility19.8%
Worse than Avg
Here
19.8%
US
15.3%
AZ
13.5%
Maricopa
11.2%
😔

Residents with depression symptoms

↓ Lower is better
This Facility3.6%
Better than Avg
Here
3.6%
US
12.1%
AZ
4.0%
Maricopa
4.0%

Highly dependent on how each facility screens and codes depressive symptoms, so it varies widely between facilities.

💊

Residents on anti-anxiety or sleep medication

↓ Lower is better
This Facility15.8%
Better than Avg
Here
15.8%
US
19.5%
AZ
20.6%
Maricopa
23.8%
🛏️

Residents needing more daily help over time

↓ Lower is better
This Facility15.6%
Worse than Avg
Here
15.6%
US
14.4%
AZ
10.6%
Maricopa
8.4%
⚖️

Residents who lost too much weight

↓ Lower is better
This Facility10.8%
Worse than Avg
Here
10.8%
US
5.3%
AZ
5.2%
Maricopa
4.3%
Short-Stay Residents (Rehab / Post-Acute)
💉

Short-stay residents vaccinated for pneumonia

↑ Higher is better
This Facility94.4%
Better than Avg
Here
94.4%
US
81.8%
AZ
91.3%
Maricopa
93.6%
💉

Short-stay residents vaccinated for the flu

↑ Higher is better
This Facility83.6%
Mixed vs Avgs
Here
83.6%
US
79.7%
AZ
87.3%
Maricopa
89.5%
💊

Short-stay residents newly given antipsychotics

↓ Lower is better
This Facility0.6%
Better than Avg
Here
0.6%
US
1.6%
AZ
1.1%
Maricopa
1.2%
Source: Medicare quality measures

US average from Medicare published data

Inspection History

Medicare Inspection History

3-year lookback · Medicare 2026

3deficiencies
Well below state avg (7.6)
1 complaint-triggered

Tempe Post Acute has recurring issues with care planning and fire safety systems across multiple surveys, with one family filing a complaint about dialysis care safety. The facility shows a pattern of deficiencies in resident assessments, quality standards, and building safety features including sprinkler and smoke barrier systems. All violations have correction dates, suggesting responsiveness to identified problems, though the repetition of care planning issues indicates ongoing challenges in this area.

Mar 6, 2026Routine
3
0558Potential for harm · IsolatedCorrected

Resident Rights Deficiencies

Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.

0584Potential for harm · IsolatedCorrected

Resident Rights Deficiencies

Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.

0812Potential for harm · IsolatedCorrected

Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies

Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.

Nov 21, 2024Routine
4
0658Potential for harm · PatternCorrected

Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies

Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.

0211Potential for harm · PatternCorrected

Egress Deficiencies

Keep aisles, corridors, and exits free of obstruction in case of emergency.

0351Potential for harm · PatternCorrected

Smoke Deficiencies

Install an approved automatic sprinkler system.

0372Potential for harm · PatternCorrected

Smoke Deficiencies

Ensure smoke barriers are constructed to a 1 hour fire resistance rating.

Dec 15, 2023Routine
1
0812Potential for harm · PatternCorrected

Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies

Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.

May 2, 2023Complaint
1
0698Potential for harm · IsolatedCorrected

Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies

Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.

Nov 10, 2022Routine
2
0321Potential for harm · IsolatedCorrected

Smoke Deficiencies

Ensure that special areas are constructed so that walls can resist fire for one hour or have an approved fire extinguishing system.

0923Potential for harm · IsolatedCorrected

Gas, Vacuum, and Electrical Systems Deficiencies

Have proper medical gas storage and administration areas.

State Inspection History

State Inspections

Source: AZ State Licensing Agency

15total
8deficiencies
Mar 17, 2025Complaint
CleanReport

The investigation of complaints 00122144, AZ00193109, AZ00190897, AZ00190951, AZ00189798 was conducted on March 17, 2025. There were no deficiencies cited.

Feb 5, 2025Complaint
CleanReport

An onsite complaint survey was conducted on February 5, 2025 for the investigation of intake # AZ00222568, AZ00222447. There were no deficiencies cited.

Jan 27, 2025Other
CleanReport

An onsite survey was conducted on January 27, 2025 for a bed increase. There were no deficiencies cited.

Nov 18, 2024Complaint

The Recertification survey was conducted on 11/18/24 through 11/21/24, in conjuntion with the investigation of Complaints #AZ00215229,AZ00188872,AZ00188217,AZ00188057,AZ00189089,AZ00188229,AZ00188488, AZ00188486, AZ00188113, AZ00188171. The following definces were cited:

An administrator shall ensure that a care plan for a resident:R9-10-414.B.3.b.Corrected Dec 27, 2024

Based on clinical review, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that physician orders were followed according to professional standards regarding blood sugar monitoring for two out of five sampled residents (#215 and #46). Findings Include: -Regarding resident #215: Resident #215 was admitted to the facility on November 8, 2024 with diagnoses that included Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications. The care plan for Diabetes Mellitus initiated on November 09, 2024 included an intervention of diabetes medication as ordered by doctor; monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated November 14, 2024 included a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 00 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the physician's order dated November 8, 2024, revealed an order for, Insulin Lispro solution 100 unit/milliliter (ml), inject as per sliding scale: if 0 - 60 =0 units asymptomatic or symptomatic blood sugar (BS) 60 and below; see as needed orders; 61 - 150 = 0 units; 151 - 200 = 3 units; 201 - 250 = 6 units; 251 - 300 = 8 units; 301 - 350 = 12 units; 351 - 400 = 15 units; 401+ = 18 units recheck, if still elevated in 60 minutes call medical doctor (MD), subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated November 2024 revealed the following: -November 10, 2024, BS was 447 and 18 units of insulin was administered. -November 12, 2024, BS was 463 and 18 units of insulin was administered. -November 13, 2024, BS was 430 and 18 units of insulin was administered. -November 16, 2024, BS was 491 and 18 units of insulin was administered. -November 17, 2024, BS was 449 and 18 units of insulin was administered. -November 18, 2024, BS was 415 and 18 units of insulin was administered. -November 19, 2024, BS was 402 and 18 units of insulin was administered. -November 20, 2024, BS was 401 and 18 units of insulin was administered. A review of the clinical record revealed no evidence that the BS was rechecked or that the physician was notified for the above dates regarding blood sugar. An interview was conducted on November 21, 2024 at 8:40 AM with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/staff #17) who stated that blood sugar checks are done whenever they are scheduled. She also stated that the blood sugar results are given to the nurses and the nurses document the results in the electronic record. She further stated that she would notify the nurse about blood sugar results in any situation but especially if the resident is below 90 or over 250. In an interview with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #82) on November 21, 2024 at 8:41 AM, who stated that the process for administering insulin included: checking the blood sugar, depending on the result the resident could have either a standard and/or sliding scale order to give insulin, wiping the resident area with an alcohol pad, and administering the medication. She also state

Nov 18, 2024Other

42 CFR 482.41 Nursing Home The facility must meet the applicable provisions of the 2012 Edition of the Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection Association This is a recertification survey for Medicare under LSC 2012, Chapter 19, Existing Health Care Occupancies The entire facility was surveyed on November 25, 2024. The facility meets the standards, based on acceptance of a plan of correction.

NFPA 101Corrected Dec 13, 2024

Based on observation the facility failed to fill multiple penetrations in the smoke barriers of the facility. Failing to seal the penetrations, holes, and openings in the smoke barriers will allow smoke and heat to penetrate other wings or possibly the whole facility which could cause harm to the patients in the time of a fire. NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, 2012, Chapter 19, Section 19.3.7.3 "Any required smoke barrier shall be constructed in accordance with Section 8.5 and shall have a fire resistance rating of at least \'bd hour." Chapter 8, Section 8.5.6.2 Penetrations for cables cable trays, conduits, pipes, tubes, vents wires and similar items to accommodate electrical, plumbing and communications systems that pass through a wall, floor or /ceiling assembly constructed as a smoke barrier, or through the ceiling membrane of the roof /ceiling of a smoke barrier assembly shall be protected by a system or material capable of restricting the transfer of smoke. Findings include: During a facility tour conducted on November 25, 2024, revealed the facility failed to maintain the smoke barriers in the fire/ smoke barrier above the ceiling tiles in the following areas: 1) The water heater room had seven plus areas of penetration (pipes not sealed, patches not sealed) in the walls and ceiling. 2) The westside storage room had penetrations in the ceiling. 3) The east therapy wall has three areas of penetration, a 4"x4" patch not sealed, a 4"x4" hole not sealed, and a 4"x6" patch not sealed. 4) The hallway outside of the therapy room above the 90-minute rated doors had penetrations as did the south wall. 5) The west wall outside room 505 had penetrations. 6) The west wall of room in 505 had penetrations. 7) The mechanical room across from Nursing Station 1 had penetrations above the door. The management team acknowledged the above-listed deficiencies during the facility tour and exit conference on November 25, 2024.

NFPA 101Corrected Dec 13, 2024

Based on observation the facility failed to provide a clear means of egress to exit to a public way. Failure to provide a clear and unimpeded means of egress could cause harm to the patients and staff in a fire emergency. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2012, Chapter 19, Section 19.2.1 "Every aisle, passageway, corridor, exit discharge, exit location, and access shall be in accordance with Chapter 7. Section 7.1.10.1 " Means of egress shall be continuously maintained free of all obstructions or impediments to full instant use in the case of fire or other emergency." Section 7.1.10.2.1 No furnishings, decorations, or other objects shall obstruct exits or their access thereto egress there from, or visibility thereof. Observations made while on tour on November 25, 2024, the facility failed to maintain a clear path to the exit in the following areas. 1) Hall with rooms 515-522- 4 Hoyer lifts, laundry bin, and briefs cart in means of egress. 2) Hall with rooms 523-532- 4 med carts, Hoyer lift, briefs cart, and laundry bin in means of egress. Management confirmed during the facility tour and the exit conference on November 25, 2025, that the above-listed exit pathways were restricted.

NFPA 101Corrected Dec 13, 2024

Based on observation the facility failed to ensure that all parts of the facility sprinkler system were properly installed. Failing to ensure proper installation in all areas of the facility could result in the sprinkler not controlling the fire which could cause harm to the residents and staff. NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, 2012, Chapter 19, Section 19.3.5.3 Where required by 19.1.6, buildings containing hospitals or limited care facilities shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, unless otherwise permitted by 19.3.5.5.." Chapter 9, Section 9.7.1.1, " Each automatic sprinkler system required by another section of this Code shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems." NFPA 13, 2010 Edition. Chapter 8, 8.6.3.3 Minimum Distances from Walls. Sprinklers shall be located a minimum of 4 in. (102 mm) from a wall. Findings include: Observations made while on tour on November 25, 2024, revealed a ceiling-mounted sprinkler head in the Zone 1 Crash Cart room was 3 \'bc inches away from the wall. The management team acknowledged during the walk-through and exit conference on November 25, 2024, that the ceiling-mounted sprinkler head in the Zone 1 Crash Cart room was to close to the wall.

Jun 4, 2024Complaint
CleanReport

An onsite complaint survey was conducted on June 4, 2024 for the investigation of intake #s AZ00210800, AZ00195040, AZ00190318, AZ00210774, AZ00196266, and AZ00194979. There were no deficiencies cited.

May 2, 2024Complaint
CleanReport

A complaint survey was conducted on May 2, 2024 for the investigation of intake #AZ00209835. There were no deficiencies cited.

Mar 21, 2024Complaint
CleanReport

An onsite Complaint Survey was conducted on March 21, 2024 for the investigation of Intake #AZ00207833. There were no deficiencies cited.

Ownership & Operations

Who Operates This Facility

Owner / Operator

Tempe Post Acute

Organization Type

for profit

Chain Affiliation

Chain Name

The Ensign Group

Chain Size

338 facilities nationwide

Chain avg rating: 3.2/5 · Rank 64 of 328 (Best)

Ownership & Management

Owners

Port, Barry

Individual is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any Adp of the Snf

Key personnel

Ortega, AmadorManaging Control - Governing BodyVij, NeerajManaging Control - Governing BodyBurnam, SoonOfficer / DirectorKeetch, ChadOfficer / DirectorPeterson, ForrestOfficer / Director
Source: Medicare provider data

Contact

Get in Touch

Contact this facility directly and verify the details that matter most to your family.

References & Resources

EveryPlace is a research directory. Facility information is compiled from public sources — Medicare.gov, state licensing portals, Google Places, and publicly available street-level imagery. Listings do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or advertisement, and we do not accept payment for placement. Families should verify all details directly with the facility and the original sources linked above before making any care decisions. See our Research Policy for our editorial standards, correction process, and image-removal policy.

Nearby Alternatives

Call