Arizona · Mesa

Magnolia Homecare at Mulberry LLC.

Care Facility5 bedsDementia-trained staff(480) 332-9485
Limited Inspection History · fewer than 4 records in 3 years
Peer rank
Top 31% of Arizona memory care
See full peer rank →
Facility · Mesa
A 5-bed Care Facility with 3 citations on file.
Licensed beds
5
Last inspection
Mar 2026
Last citation
Feb 2025
Operated by
Snapshot

A small home, reviewed on public record.

Magnolia Homecare at Mulberry LLC

© Google Street View

Map showing location of Magnolia Homecare at Mulberry LLC
© Mapbox · OpenStreetMap
Peer Comparison

Compared to 1,649 Arizona facilities with a similar number of beds.

Care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: Arizona Dept. of Health Services · Bureau of Residential Facilities Licensing.

Severity rank
43rd%
Weighted citations per bed.
peer median
0
100
Repeat rank
Not enough repeat citations
among peers to rank.
Repeat deficiencies as share of total.
Frequency rank
64th%
Deficiencies per inspection.
peer median
0
100

Rankings based on 36-month ADHS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.

Save for comparison:
The Record

Citation history, plotted month by month.

3 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.

Peer median 1 · dashed
Last citation: FEB 2025. Compared against peer median (dashed).
peer median
FEB 2025
Sep 2024as of Aug 2026

Finding distribution

3 total · 36 months

Scope × Severity (CMS A–L)

Isolated
Pattern
Widespread
Sev 4 · IJ
J
K
L
Sev 3
G
H
I
Sev 2
D3
E
F
Sev 1
A
B
C
Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

2 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Plain-language summaries open first — click into any row for the full citation text.

2
reports on file
3
total deficiencies
2026-03-05
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings

Facility Watch · Premium

Monitor this facility.

We'll notify you if anything changes.

Official inspection and license-record changes for Magnolia Homecare at Mulberry LLC, plus news, public reviews, and complaint mentions across the web — usually within a day of appearing online. Nothing is swept under the rug.

  • Official inspection and license-record alerts (included)
  • Broader web mentions: news, enforcement, lawsuits, closures
  • Public review and complaint mentions online
  • Source-linked alerts, usually within a day

$9/month or $59/year · Cancel anytime

Payment is processed by Stripe. Monitoring is activated within one business day. Web and review mentions are best-effort from what we can find publicly. Cancel anytime from your billing link.

2025-02-20
Annual Compliance Visit
R9-10-803.A.9 · 3 findings
R9-10-803.A.9A.A.C. § RR9-10-803.A.9
Verbatim citation text · A.A.C. § RR9-10-803.A.9

Based on documentation review, observation, record review, and interview, the governing authority failed to ensure compliance with A.R.S. § 36-411, for one of three personnel sampled. The deficient practice posed a risk if E3 was a danger to a vulnerable population. Findings include:  1. A.R.S. § 36-411(C)(2) states, "Each residential care institution, nursing care institution and home health agency shall make documented, good faith efforts to: 2. Verify the current status of a person’s fingerprint clearance card." 2. While on-site for the compliance inspection, the Compliance Officers observed E3 at the facility, providing services to residents. 3. A review of E3's personnel record revealed documentation of a valid FPCC dated prior to E3's date of hire. However, E3's personnel record did not include documentation of the facility's verification of E3's FPCC. 4. In an interview, E4 acknowledged that E3's FPCC card was not verified, and the governing authority failed to ensure compliance with A.R.S. § 36-411(C)(2).

R9-10-806.A.8A.A.C. § RR9-10-806.A.8
Verbatim citation text · A.A.C. § RR9-10-806.A.8

Based on documentation review, record review, and interview, the manager failed to ensure that a caregiver provided evidence of freedom from infectious tuberculosis (TB) as specified in R9-10-113, for one of three personnel sampled. The deficient practice posed a potential illness risk to residents. Findings include: 1. R9-10-113.A states, "If a health care institution is subject to the requirements of this Section, as specified in an Article in this Chapter, the health care institution's chief administrative officer shall ensure that the health care institution establishes, documents, and implements tuberculosis infection control activities that...2. Include: a. For each individual who is employed by the health care institution, provides volunteer services for the health care institution, or is admitted to the health care institution and who is subject to the requirements of this Section, screening, on or before the date specified in the applicable Article of this Chapter, that consists of: i. Assessing risks of prior exposure to infectious tuberculosis, ii. Determining if the individual has signs or symptoms of tuberculosis, and iii. Obtaining documentation of the individual's freedom from infectious tuberculosis according to subsection (B)(1)..." 2. A review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website revealed a web page titled "Guidelines for Preventing the Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Health-Care Settings, 2005." The web page stated, "If TST (Mantoux Skin T est) is used for baseline testing, two-step testing is recommended for HCWs (Health Care Workers) whose initial TST results are negative. If the first-step TST result is negative, the second-step TST should be administered 1-3 weeks after the first TST result was read." 3. A review of E3's personnel record revealed two negative TB skin tests that were less than 12 months old; however, this documentation was not completed before E3 began providing services at the facility. Based on E3’s date of hire, this documentation was required. 4. In an interview, E4 reported E4 was unaware of the new TB policies as specified in R9-10-113. E4 acknowledged E3 did not provide evidence of freedom from infectious TB as specified in R9-10-113.

R9-10-818.A.4A.A.C. § RR9-10-818.A.4
Verbatim citation text · A.A.C. § RR9-10-818.A.4

Based on documentation review and interview, the manager failed to ensure that a disaster drill for employees was conducted on each shift at least once every three months and documented. The deficient practice posed a risk if employees were unable to implement a disaster plan. Findings include: 1. A review of the facility's disaster drill documentation revealed documentation of drills on the following dates: December 30, 2024; September 30, 2024; June 30, 2024; and March 30, 2024. However, the drills were all conducted during the 7: 00 AM - 7:00 PM shift. 2. In an interview, E4 reported the facility operated two staff shifts, 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM and 7:00 PM - 7:00 AM. E4 acknowledged a disaster drill was not conducted on each shift at least once every three months and documented.

Family reviews

No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience

Related in this city

Other memory care options nearby.

Is this listing wrong? Report an issue →
Reports help us maintain accurate facility information. Your report will be reviewed within 1-2 business days.