Lilisity

Independent Living and Assisted Living

Brookdale Valencia

300 Valencia Dr SE, Albuquerque, NM 87108 · Map
Licensed for 100 residents

State license active
Is this your community? Claim this listing

Brookdale Valencia is a state-licensed independent living, assisted living community in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is licensed for 100 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.

Independent LivingAlso assisted living
100 residentsLicensed capacity
State licensedAssisted living facility

Prices

This community does not publish its prices.

Lilisity’s independent report

What the public record shows

Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.

State inspections

30Survey reports posted
32Deficiencies cited

Latest survey report shown: Nov 27, 2023. See the record

License

Active, 100 residents

Assisted Living Facility 5792.

Side by side with nearby communities

The 4 nearest communities that offer assisted living, by straight-line distance. Prices are starting prices each community publishes; we never show estimates.

CommunityDistanceLicensed capacityPublished starting priceLicenseInspection citations
Brookdale Valencia this community100Not publishedActive32 deficiencies in 30 reports
Touched by A White Dove Assisted Living1.2 mi3Not publishedActive1 deficiency in 8 reports
Casa Angelina South East1.3 mi8Not publishedActive0 deficiencies in 11 reports
American San Pablo Assisted Living1.7 mi10Not publishedActive0 deficiencies in 0 reports
Hannett House1.7 mi10Not publishedActive0 deficiencies in 5 reports
State inspection record32 deficiencies in 30 reports
NM license number
5792
Licensed beds (state listing)
100
Latest survey report shown
November 27, 2023
Survey reports posted
30
Deficiencies cited
32
Substantiated complaints
2
Unsubstantiated complaints
14

Survey reports

  • November 27, 2023 (Revisit survey): 1 deficiency cited report (Internet Archive copy of D4TL13.pdf)
    • Custodial Drug Permits. The rule: “A facility with two (2) or more residents that is licensed pursuant to this rule and that assists with self-administration or safeguards medications for residents shall have a current custodial drug permit issued by the state board of pharmacy.” 7.8.2.34 NMAC
  • May 16, 2023 (Revisit survey): 3 deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of D4TL12.pdf)
    • Resident Rights. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure the safety and welfare of the residents by having sharps (lancets, syringes, needles) containers in a unlocked or secured place and accessible to residents, some with memory loss.” A033, 7.8.2.33 NMAC
    • Custodial Drug Permits. The rule: “A facility with two (2) or more residents that is licensed pursuant to this rule and that assists with self-administration or safeguards medications for residents shall have a current custodial drug permit issued by the state board of pharmacy.” The state wrote that this is an uncorrected deficiency. 7.8.2.34 NMAC
    • Housekeeping Services. The rule: “The facility shall maintain the interior and exterior of the facility in a safe, clean, orderly and attractive manner.” The state wrote that this is an uncorrected deficiency. 7.8.2.38 NMAC
  • August 4, 2022 (Full onsite/Complaint survey): 9 deficiencies cited, complaint 51358 unsubstantiated, complaint 56259 unsubstantiated, complaint 59562 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of D4TL11.pdf)
    • Staff Training. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that there was documentation kept in the personnel files at the facility that Direct Care Staff (DCS) received sixteen (16) hours of supervised training prior to providing unsupervised care.” 7.8.2.17 NMAC
    • Policies. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that there are written personne} policies established and implemented which includes how the facility intends to comply with ait requirements of these regulations.” 7.8.2.18 NMAC
    • Admissions and Discharge. The rule: “The facility shall complete an admission agreement for each resident.” 7.8.2.20 NMAC
    • Resident Records. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure for 1 (R #s 1 STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES Xt) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA, AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.” A021, 7.8.2.21 NMAC
    • Resident Evaluation. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure for 5 (R #s 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) of 6 (R #s 1-6) residents whose facility record were reviewed for compliance to ensure that their initial evaluations were reviewed and if needed revised by a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Registered Nurse (RN), or a Physician Extender.” 7.8.2.25 NMAC
    • Resident Rights. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that the Resident Rights poster was posted in the facility's common area.” 7.8.2.33 NMAC
    • Custodial Drug Permits. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that there was a precautionary sign posted on the door of the storage room enclosure and that oxygen cylinder tanks were stored securely and protected from accidentat damage or dislocation.” A034, 7.8.2.34 NMAC
    • Lighting and Lighting Fixtures. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that all emergency lights in the facility were in working order.” 7.8.2.47 NMAC
    • Windows. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that all of the facility's windows had screens.” 7.8.2.59 NMAC
  • November 30, 2020 (Complaint survey): no deficiencies cited, complaint 46409 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of M78E11.pdf)
  • July 15, 2020 (Offsite Surveillance survey): no deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of B90F11.pdf)
Show all 30
  • July 6, 2020 (offsite Revisit/Follow-up survey): no deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of M2SW12.pdf)
  • May 27, 2020 (Offsite Surveillance survey): no deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of IG7411.pdf)
  • April 21, 2020 (offsite suviallance survey): no deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of C7YS11.pdf)
  • March 31, 2020 (Offsite Surveillance survey): no deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of 0N5211.pdf)
  • March 12, 2020 (Complaint survey): 1 deficiency cited, complaint 42349 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of M2SW11.pdf)
    • Reporting of Incidents. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure for 2 (R #s 5 and 7) of 9 (R#s 1-9) residents whose resident files were reviewed for compliance that incidents of unusual occurrence, that could likely threaten the health, safety, or welfare of the residents were reported to the Licensing Authority within twenty-four (24) hours or the next business day if on a holiday or weekend.” 7.8.2.32 NMAC
  • March 12, 2020 (offsite suviallance survey): no deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of EPHF11.pdf)
  • March 9, 2020 (Onsite Surveillance survey): no deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of SG2X11.pdf)
  • March 21, 2018 (Revisit/Follow-up survey): see the report report (Internet Archive copy of IM8X12.pdf)
  • December 14, 2017 (Full-Onsite/Complaint survey): 7 deficiencies cited, complaint 30419 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of IM8X11.pdf)
    • Admissions and Discharge. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure for 2 (R #s 2 & 4) of 6 (R #s 1-6) residents whose Admission/Discharge Agreements were reviewed for compliance, contained complete and accurate information regarding, "if/when" the facility can terminate the agreement and discharge a resident.” 7.8.2.20 NMAC
    • Individual Service Plan (ISP). The state found: “The facility failed to ensure for 6 (R #1-6) of 6 (R #1-6) Individual Service Plans (ISPs)/Personal Service Plans (PSPs) reviewed for compliance were signed as reviewed by nurse to ensure all health needs are met for the residents.” 7.8.2.26 NMAC
    • Resident Rights. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure for 6 (R #s 1-6) of 6 (R #s 1-6) residents, whose Individual Service Plans (ISPs)/Personal Service Plans (PSPs) were reviewed for compliance, were informed of their right to participate in the development of their ISP.” 7.8.2.33 NMAC
    • Custodial Drug Permits. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that oxygen cylinder tanks were secured and stored correctly.” 7.8.2.34 NMAC
    • Lighting and Lighting Fixtures. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that 3 of the 15 emergency lights tested in the facility were working.” 7.8.2.47 NMAC
    • Windows. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that all operable windows had screens on them and that they were in good repair.” 7.8.2.59 NMAC
    • Fire Clearance and Inspections. The state found: “The facility failed to ensure that an annual fire inspection by the Local Fire Authority (having jurisdiction) had been conducted.” 7.8.2.60 NMAC
  • April 28, 2015 (complaint survey): 1 deficiency cited, complaint 29667 substantiated report (Internet Archive copy of S_9YSF11.pdf)
    • Individual Service Plan (ISP). The state found: “The facility failed to revise an individual service plan for 1 (R #1) of 4(R #14, 2, 3, and 4) sampled residents who experienced a change of condition.” 7.8.2.26 NMAC
  • April 28, 2015 (complaint survey): 1 deficiency cited, complaint 29667 substantiated report (Internet Archive copy of 9YSF11.pdf)
    • Individual Service Plan (ISP). The state found: “The facility failed to revise an individual service plan for 1 (R #1) of 4 (R #1, 2, 3, and 4) sampled residents who experienced a change of condition.” 7.8.2.26 NMAC
  • September 10, 2014 (complaint investigation): no deficiencies cited, complaint 29526 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of T5BC11.pdf)
  • January 18, 2013: no deficiencies cited, complaint 28570 unsubstantiated, complaint 28891 unsubstantiated, complaint 28910 unsubstantiated, complaint 288918 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of S_0Z5611.pdf)
  • January 18, 2013: no deficiencies cited, complaint 28570 unsubstantiated, complaint 28891 unsubstantiated, complaint 28910 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of 0Z5611.pdf)
  • February 29, 2012 (complaint investigation): 1 deficiency cited, complaint 28318 substantiated report (Internet Archive copy of S_JNV711.pdf)
    • Reporting of Incidents. The state found: “The facility failed to report an incident of Abuse from a staff to a resident within twenty four (24) hours of the abuse (resident #1 and staff #101).” 7.8.2.32 NMAC
  • February 29, 2012 (complaint investigation): 2 deficiencies cited, complaint 28318 substantiated report (Internet Archive copy of JNV711.pdf)
    • Reporting of Incidents. The state found: “The facility failed to report an incident of Abuse from a staff to a resident within twenty four (24) hours of the abuse (resident #1 and staff #101).” 7.8.2.32 NMAC
    • Incorporated and Related Rules and Codes. The state found: “The facility failed to report an incident of abuse from a staff to a resident within twenty four (24) hours of the abuse (resident #1 and staff #101).” 7.8.2.70 NMAC
  • December 21, 2011 (Complaint investigation): complaint 28246 investigated (outcome in the report), complaint 27999 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of S_DZ5C11.pdf)
  • December 21, 2011 (Complaint investigation): complaint 28246 investigated (outcome in the report), complaint 27999 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of DZ5C11.pdf)
  • January 20, 2011 (complaint investigation): no deficiencies cited, complaint unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of S_M1DS11.pdf)
  • January 20, 2011 (complaint investigation): no deficiencies cited, complaint 27846 unsubstantiated report (Internet Archive copy of M1DS11.pdf)
  • September 24, 2009 (Life Safety Code survey): 2 deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of S_AER021.pdf)
    • Fire Clearance and Inspections 7.8.2.60 NMAC
    • Fire Extinguishers. The state found: “The facility failed to conduct fire drills at least quarterly on every shift to assure preparedness for emergency response.” 7.8.2.63 NMAC
  • September 24, 2009 (Life Safety Code survey): 2 deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of S_AER021-1.pdf)
    • Fire Clearance and Inspections 7.8.2.60 NMAC
    • Fire Extinguishers. The state found: “The facility failed to conduct fire drills at least quarterly on every shift to assure preparedness for emergency response.” 7.8.2.63 NMAC
  • October 8, 2008: no deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of S_3F5S11.pdf)
  • October 7, 2008: 2 deficiencies cited report (Internet Archive copy of S_3F5S21.pdf)
    • Fire Clearance and Inspections 7.8.2.60 NMAC
    • Fire Alarms, Smoke Detectors and Other Equipment 7.8.2.61 NMAC
  • November 7, 2007: see the report report (Internet Archive copy of S_VY7P11.pdf)

The state’s listing for license 5792 (Internet Archive copy) →

New Mexico’s License Oversight Bureau posts each survey’s Statement of Deficiencies as a scanned PDF. We read the scans by OCR and show, for each report, the survey date, the kind of survey in the state’s words, each deficiency tag with the rule it cites and the state’s own one-sentence finding when OCR reads it whole. Each rule is named by its heading in New Mexico’s assisted living rules: 7.8.2 NMAC until June 30, 2024, and 8.370.14 NMAC (same section numbers) since July 1, 2024. The rules say: “If violations of this rule are cited, the facility will be provided with an official statement of deficiencies within 10 business days following the survey.” The facility’s plan of correction is printed in the right-hand column of the same report. The reports give no severity level for assisted living deficiencies, and the state’s site lists no fines or license actions. Revisit reports often repeat the complaint outcomes of the survey they follow up on; we count each complaint once. The state’s site (alf.hca.nm.gov) has not answered since at least September 2026, so we read the listing and reports from the Internet Archive’s copies, captured between January 16, 2026 and June 12, 2026. Reports the state posted after that are not shown. This community is licensed for 100 residents; larger communities are inspected and reported on more often, so read counts with size in mind. Source: New Mexico Health Care Authority, Division of Health Improvement, License Oversight Bureau, read October 16, 2026. The report itself is the official record. Always visit in person and ask the community about anything listed here.

License and ownershipActive license
License type
Assisted Living Facility
License number
5792
License status
Active
Licensed capacity
100

State listing as of May 2026. New Mexico HCA assisted living directory, archived copy.

Source: New Mexico state licensing records (agency listing), retrieved 2026-05-11. Licensing status is a matter of public record; it is not a quality rating.

Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in New Mexico, and other programs

How Medicaid pays for care in New Mexico

  • Turquoise Care Community Benefit (Agency-Based Community Benefit). Yes. New Mexico Medicaid's Community Benefit, provided through Turquoise Care managed care plans, lists assisted living as a covered service. (state page)

Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.

Questions to ask on a tour9 questions picked for this community from its record

Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.

  1. What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
  2. How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
  3. What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
  4. What fees are charged at move-in?
  5. How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
  6. How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
  7. Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
  8. For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
  9. Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
What we checked7 public sources we searched, with dates

Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.

SourceData as ofWhat we found
New Mexico Health Care Authority, Division of Health Improvement, License Oversight Bureau inspection recordsOct 16, 2026See above
U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour casesOct 15, 2026Nothing on record
OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016Oct 15, 2026Nothing on record
HUD Multifamily Properties - AssistedJul 6, 2026Nothing on record
State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory)Sep 20, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Hospice - General InformationAug 19, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Home Health Care AgenciesMay 27, 2026Nothing on record
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Brookdale Valencia provide?

Brookdale Valencia is licensed by the state of New Mexico for independent living, assisted living in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Its licensed capacity is 100 residents.

Does Lilisity rate Brookdale Valencia?

No. We publish state licensing details for Brookdale Valencia but no score, rating, or ranking. Only communities on the Top Communities list or with a Senior Living Alliance Excellence Award, both based on phone-verified resident and family interviews, are ranked.

How much does Brookdale Valencia cost?

Brookdale Valencia does not publish its prices.

How do I contact Brookdale Valencia?

Use Brookdale Valencia's website, brookdale.com/en/communities/brookdale-valencia.html?rr=1, or visit at 300 Valencia Dr SE, Albuquerque, NM 87108.

Choosing assisted livingOur care guide: what to look for, what it costs, how families pay, and more questions to ask (PDF)

Report a wrong fact

How Lilisity works. The only scores or rankings Lilisity publishes are the Top Communities list and the Excellence Awards, both built from phone-verified resident and family interviews. Communities can pay Lilisity a flat monthly fee to manage their own listing: photos, prices, contact details, and receiving the inquiries families choose to send them. The fee is the same no matter how many families contact them or move in. Senior Living Alliance, which runs Lilisity, offers the same listing to its member communities as part of their membership; members pay SLA for its resident and family interview program. No community pays Lilisity per inquiry, per referral or per move-in. Payment never changes a testimonial, a rating, or the order of search results. The "Nearby Senior Living Alliance communities" box shows member communities only. How we verify testimonials · How we are paid