Mary & Pete's Assisted Living.

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.
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.
1 deficiency on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
1 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
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.
2025-11-24Complaint InvestigationNo findings
2025-10-10Annual Compliance VisitR9-10-814.B · 1 finding
“Based on record review and interview, the manager accepted and retained a resident who was confined to a bed or chair without meeting the requirements of R9-10-814(B)(2). The deficient practice posed a risk if the facility was unable to meet a resident's needs. Findings include: 1. R9-10-814(B)(2) states, "A manager of an assisted living facility authorized to provide personal care services may accept or retain a resident who is confined to a bed or chair because of an inability to ambulate even with assistance if: the resident's primary care provider... examines the resident... at least once every six months throughout the duration of the resident's condition; reviews the assisted living facility's scope of services; and signs and dates a determination stating that the resident's needs can be met by the assisted living facility..." 2. A review of R2’s medical record revealed a current service plan for directed care services, which indicated R2 was bedbound. Further review of R2’s medical record revealed evidence of documentation indicating R2 was examined by a medical provider per R9-10-814(B)(2), was unavailable for review. 3. In an interview, E1 acknowledged R2 was non-ambulatory and was accepted into the facility in the same condition. E1 acknowledged R2’s medical record did not include the required determination per R9-10-814(B)(2). 4. In an exit interview, the findings were reviewed with E1, and no additional information was provided.”
1 older inspection from 2023 are not shown above.
Get the complete record, translated into plain language — emailed to you.
Other facilities in Tucson.
Other memory care facilities near Tucson with similar care offerings.
Full Inspection Record
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience



