Tbi Care, Inc..

A medium home, reviewed on public record.

© Google Street View
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.
among peers to rank.
on file.
Rankings based on 36-month ADHS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
3 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
3 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
1 inspection in the public record, most recent first. Plain-language summaries open first — click into any row for the full citation text.
2025-10-22Complaint InvestigationR9-10-806.A.8 · 3 findings
“Based on record review, documentation review, and interview, the manager failed to ensure that a manager, a caregiver, assistant caregiver, or a volunteer provide documentation of freedom from infectious Tuberculosis (TB) as specified in R9-10-113. The deficient practice posed a potential TB exposure risk to residents. Findings include: 1. A record review of E3’s personnel record revealed, E3 provided one negative TB test on May 13, 2025. A second negative TB skin test was not available for review. 2. A documentation review of the facility's Policies and Procedure titled, "Amendment to Policy and Procedure" stated, “we are modifying the policy and procedures effective 01/01/2025. Our annual TB screening for new hires and current employees will be per state guidelines code R9-10-113-(B)(1)." 3. In an interview, E1 acknowledged documentation of freedom from infectious Tuberculosis (TB) was not provided for E3.”
“Based on record review, documentation review, and interview, the manager failed to ensure that before or at the time of acceptance of an individual, the individual submits documentation that is dated within 90 calendar days before the individual is accepted by an assisted living facility and: If an individual is requesting or is expected to receive supervisory care services, personal care services, or directed care services: includes whether the individual requires: continuous medical services, continuous or intermittent nursing services, or restraints; and is dated and signed by a: Physician, Registered nurse practitioner, Registered nurse, or Physician assistant. The deficient practice posed a risk if the facility was unable to meet a resident's needs. Findings include: 1. A record review of R1's medical records revealed, based on the resident's admission dates, the initial or continuation medical authorization form was required. However, it was not provided. 2. A documentation review of the facility's Policies and Procedures titled "Facility Acceptance and Termination of Residency and Resident Rights Policies and Procedures, stated, "The admission process will be completed by the Manager or designee (as appropriate) This process includes: f. Appropriate placement statement signed by a Physician, Physician's assistant, Nurse Practitioner, or Registered Nurse." 3. In an interview, E1 acknowledged an initial physician statement was not available for R1 that indicated if the resident was eligible for assisted living services and if the resident received supervisory care services, personal care services, or directed care services.”
“Based on record review and interview, the manager failed to ensure that the service plan for a resident receiving directed care services included documentation of the resident's weight, or a statement from a medical practitioner stating that weighing the resident is contraindicated. The deficient practice posed a risk as the service plan to direct services was not followed. Findings include: 1. A record review of R1's service plan revealed, the resident received Directed Care services. Page six of R1's service plan revealed , the section titled “Recent Weights” was blank. A physician statement indicating weighing the resident would be contraindicated was not available for review. 2. In an interview, E1 acknowledged the manager did not ensure R1's service plan contained the resident's weight as required for Directed Care residents.”
Other facilities in Phoenix.
Other memory care facilities near Phoenix with similar care offerings.
Facility Watch · Premium
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience



