The Gardens at la Cholla.

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.
7 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
7 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
6 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Plain-language summaries open first — click into any row for the full citation text.
2026-01-26Other VisitNo findings
2026-01-12Complaint InvestigationNo findings
2025-10-17Complaint InvestigationR9-10-819.D.2 · 1 finding
“Based on documentation review and interview, the manager failed to ensure a caregiver or an assistant caregiver documented an event in which a resident had an accident, emergency, or injury and needed medical services, as required per R9-10-818.D.2. Findings include: 1. A review of facility documentation revealed an incident report, dated September 3, 2025, documenting an incident in which R1 required medical services. The report documented the event, including the description of the emergency, names of individuals who observed the incident, actions taken by the caregiver, individuals notified, and any actions taken to prevent the emergency in the future. However, the report did not include the time the emergency occurred. 2. In an exit interview, the findings were reviewed with E1, and no additional information was provided.”
2025-07-24Complaint InvestigationR9-10-803.K.2 · 2 findings
“Based on record review, documentation review, and interview, the manager failed to provide written notification to the Department of a resident’s self-injury, within two working days after a resident inflicts a self-injury requiring immediate intervention by an emergency services provider. The deficient practice posed a risk as the Department was unable to assess if there was an immediate health and safety concern for the other residents residing in the assisted living facility. Findings include: 1. A review of R1’s medical record revealed an incident report dated July 20, 2025, which indicated R1 was sent to the hospital after suffering a head injury. The report reflected R1 “…smacked [R1’s] head purposely against the sharps container,” and R1 was left “…unresponsive and shaking.” 2. A review of Department documentation revealed evidence of the facility’s written notification to the Department of R1’s self-injury was unavailable for review. 3. In an interview, E1 acknowledged the facility had failed to notify the Department within two days of R1’s self-injury, which required immediate intervention by an emergency services provider.”
“Based on record review and interview, the manager failed to ensure the service plan for one of two sampled residents receiving directed care services included strategies to ensure a resident’s personal safety and documentation of the coordination of communications with the resident’s representative or family members. Findings include: 1. A review of R2’s medical record revealed a service plan, dated April 29, 2025, for directed care services. The service plan included documentation of R2’s weight and indicated R2 had lost 13.6 pounds between March 17, 2025, and April 29, 2025. The service plan included a section titled ‘Weight Loss/Gain,” which contained a note stating, “Care associate will weigh resident monthly or as ordered and will report significant weight loss of 5% or more in 30 days, 7.5% or more 90 days or 10% or more in 180 days to Provider.” However, the service plan did not include documentation of coordination of communications with R1’s representative or family members. 2. In an interview, E1 acknowledged R1’s service plan did not include documentation of coordination of communications with the resident’s representative or family members.”
2025-04-10Complaint InvestigationR9-10-807.A · 3 findings
“Based on record review and interview, the manager failed to ensure a resident provided evidence of freedom from infectious tuberculosis (TB) within seven calendar days after the resident’s date of occupancy. Findings include: 1. A review of R2’s medical record revealed evidence of documentation of a negative TB skin test. However, the test was not performed and entered into R2’s medical record until twelve days after R2’s date of occupancy at the facility. 2. In an interview, E1 acknowledged R2 had not provided evidence of freedom from infectious TB as specified in R9-10-113, within seven calendar days of their respective dates of occupancy.”
“Based on record review and interview, the manager failed to ensure a resident had a written service plan which included the level of service the resident is expected to receive, or included the amount, type, and frequency of assisted living services being provided, for two of four residents sampled. Findings include: 1. A review of R1’s medical record revealed written and signed service plans. R1’s service plan included the service “Support Stockings,” which indicated caregivers were to “assist resident with applying/removing support stockings…” R1’s service plan also included the service “Denture(s),” which indicated caregivers “will provide assistance with oral care, resident has [their] own teeth.” However, the service plan did not indicate the amount of assistance the resident required or the frequency of either service. 2. A review of R2’s medical record revealed written and signed service plans. However, R2’s service plan did not include the level of service (directed care) R2 would receive. 3. In an interview, E1 agreed R1’s and R2’s service plans did not include either the amount and frequency or the level of service each resident was expected to receive.”
“Based on document review and interview, the manager failed to ensure an evacuation drill was conducted at least every six months. Findings include: 1. A review of facility documentation revealed evidence of documentation of an evacuation drill conducted on April 2, 2025. However, evidence of documentation an evacuation drill was conducted in the preceding six months was unavailable for review. 2. In an interview, E1 advised they were unable to locate documentation of an evacuation drill conducted in September 2024, October, 2024, or November 2024. E1 acknowledged the facility had not conducted an evacuation drill every six months as required.”
2024-05-28Complaint InvestigationA.A.C. · 1 finding
“Based on record review and interview, the manager failed to ensure a caregiver documented the services provided in the resident's medical record, for two of two residents sampled. Findings include: 1. A review of R1's and R2's medical records revealed each resident had a current service plan which included the services needed by each resident. 2. A review of R1's and R2's medical record revealed documentation of services provided to each resident on each shift. However, the documentation included multiple omissions for each resident where provided services had not been documented, and where documentation of, "as needed," (PRN) tasks were erroneously indicated to have been provided. 3. In an interview, E1 acknowledged the services provided to each resident were not accurately documented in each resident's medical record.”
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.
Contract Decoder
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience



