Camarillo Healthcare Center
205 Granada Street, Camarillo, CA 93010 · For profit - Corporation · 114 certified beds · (805) 482-9805 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (33) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.1% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 4.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 7.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.3% | 1.6% | 3.3% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.6% | 9.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.4% | 13.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.9% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 2.8% | 10.2% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.8% | 12.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.9% | 23.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.6% | 11.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.30 | 2.25 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.66 | 1.57 | 1.80 | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
55.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 359 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 167 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.54 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 55.8%CMS range 49.2–60.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 8.4–13.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 73.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 58.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 64.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 99.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.4% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.6%CMS range 6.0–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.39 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 114 beds and averages 111.8 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.54 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.00 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
33 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-15 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment by ensuring the dining area corridor wall was intact, dry, and free of insects. This facility failure placed residents at risk of exposure to mold from humid or wet walls, which also attracted insects. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/4/25 at 10:50 a.m. with charge nurse (CN) in the facility ' s dining corridor, a hole was observed on the wall of the corridor leading from the dining room to the medical records office. The bottom wall siding was detached from the wall creating an opening between the siding and the base of the wall. Several ants were observed going in and out of the hole through the opening in the damaged wall. There was visible damage on the wall area close to the corner. The wall damage was partially obscured by a lift device parked nearby. CN who was present at the time of the observation, confirmed the wall was damaged. CN was asked how long the wall had been damaged. CN stated I don ' t know. I had not noticed that before. During another…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-15 · tag F0711 — isolatedEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to; 1. Ensure the attending physician (MD1) for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) conducted a review of resident's medications at each visit. 2. Ensure Resident 1's physician (MD 1) wrote, signed, and dated a progress note at each visit and note was in the resident's medical record. The facility's failures resulted in the physician's progress notes being inaccurate. Findings: 1. A review of the facility policy titled History and Physical, Physician Progress Notes, NP/PA Documentation, dated 11/24, indicated The physician should review the resident's total program of care, including medications . at each visit. During a concurrent review of Resident 1's medical record and interview with the medical records supervisor (MRS) on 3/4/25 at 12:05 p.m., the MRS was asked to provide all the providers (physician, NP, PA) visit notes for the year 2024. A review of MD 1 progress notes, dated 1/8/24, 4/3/24, 6/11/24, 8/14/24, 10/16/24, 1/15/25, and 2/14/25. The seven (7) progress notes indicated the resident was on the following…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-15 · tag F0712 — isolatedEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) physician conducted visits at least once every 60 days and timely within the 10 days of the required date of the visit. The facility ' s failure resulted in the resident not being evaluated timely thus potentially having a negative outcome. Findings: During a concurrent review of Resident 1 ' s medical record and interview with the medical records supervisor (MRS) on 3/4/25 at 12:05 p.m., the MRS was asked to provide all the providers (physician, NP, PA) visit notes for the year 2024. The MRS reported none of the physician ' s visit notes were in the medical record, for this resident. The MRS contacted the physician (MD1) over the phone to asked physician to send the resident ' s visit notes for the entire year of 2024 to the facility. During another interview with the MRS on 3/4/25 at 2:35 p.m., MRS handed over some papers indicating these were all the 2024 physician notes. The papers consisted of physician ' s notes dated 1/8/24, 4/3/24, 6/11/24, 8/14/24, 10/16/24,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-27 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure an identified pressure ulcer (localized, pressure-related damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence) with care issues was assessed and documented for one of two sampled residents (Resident 2). This failure had the potential to impede the treatment and interventions of the existing pressure ulcers which can result in deterioration affecting the overall medical condition of Resident 2. Findings: Review of [NAME] and [NAME], 7th Edition, Mosby's Fundamentals of Nursing, page 243 in the section titled, Data Documentation indicates, Observation and recording of client status is a legal and professional responsibility. The nurse practice acts in all states and the American Nurses Association Nursing's Social Policy Statement (2003) mandate, or require, accurate data collection and recording as independent functions essential to the role of the professional nurse. During a review of Resident 2's medical record, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-07 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure: 1. One of 25 sampled residents (Resident 624) was treated with dignity (the feeling of being valued and respected as a person) and respect, during and after a room change. This failure had the potential to negatively affect Resident 624's sense of self-worth and care needs to go unmet. 2. One resident (Resident 31) was free of foul body odor. This failure had the potential to violate resident 31's rights to receive quality care and freedom from neglect. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/6/25, at 5:12 p.m., inside Resident 624's room, with Resident 624's family member (Fam 1), the Fam 1 was visibly upset, shaking and in tears. Resident 624's call light was observed hanging on the wall above Resident 624's bed and out of reach. Resident 624's belongings were also observed on a bedside table and out of reach by Resident 624. The Fam 1 verbalzied Resident 624 had been moved to a new room and facility staff had left Resident 624 in the new room, with the call light and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-07 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an advance directive (AD - a written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment) was noted in residents re-admission agreement for one of 25 sampled residents (Resident 85). This failure had the potential for the facility to not honor the resident's medical decisions regarding end-of-life treatment and had the potential to cause conflict with Resident 85's wishes regarding health care. Findings: During review of Resident 85's medical record on 02/05/25 at 08:44 a.m., the medical record indicated that resident 85 was readmitted to facility on 07/05/24 and Resident 85's AD was completed and signed on 04/04/24. During a review of Resident 85's re-admission Agreement dated 07/05/24, the re-admission agreement indicated Resident 85 did not have an AD on readmission [DATE]. During a concurrent interview and record review on 02/06/25 at 10:30 a.m. with Director of admission (DOA), Resident 85's Electronic Health Record (EHR) was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Maintain two rooms in good repair, for one unsampled Resident (Resident 14) and one sampled Resident (Resident 87). 2. Monitor hot water temperature readings and air conditioner temperature recordings. These facility failure had the potential for Resident 14 and Resident 87 to not be provided with a homelike and comfortable environment and had the potential for resident health problems and poor well-being of residents. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/4/25, starting at 11:14 a.m., with the Housekeeping Supervisor (HS), the Maintenance and Housekeeping Log was reviewed. The HS verbalized the logbook indicated there were no outstanding items that were in disrepair. During a tour of Resident 87's room an observation was made of a closet drawer unable to be opened. The HS confirmed the drawer could not be opened and verbalized it was off its track. In Resident 14's room an observation was made of a broken electrical outlet cover above Resident 14's bed. The HS verbalized the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident #31), had a comprehensive care plan that included interventions (actions) for the refusal of sitting upright while eating. This failure had the potential for Resident 31 to choke on food or liquids which can result in aspiration and possibly death. Findings: During a review of Resident 31's admission Record (AR), undated, the AR indicated admission date of 01/26/2024 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure (weakened heart with difficulty pumping blood throughout the body), chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (not enough oxygen in the body causing shortness of breath), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (irritation of the food pipe lining causing symptoms such as burning pain), and cognitive communication deficit (a disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate). During a concurrent observation and interview on 02/04/25 at 3:42 p.m. with Resident 31 inside the resident's room, Resident 31 was awake, lying flat on the bed eating lunch by self.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-07 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was monitoring for signs and symptoms of bleeding for a resident (Resident 53) who is on anticoagulant Eliquis (Medication that prevent or treat blood clots). This failure had the potential for Resident 53 to be unmonitored while on Eliquis, and have side effects of bleeding. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/5/25 at 10:00 a.m. the medication administration record (MAR) dated January 2025, indicated an order of Eliquis 2.5 mg 1 tablet by mouth two times a day. There was no monitoring for signs of bleeding seen in the MAR. Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator verified that there was no monitoring for bleeding side effect found in the chart. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Medication Management, dated May 2022, P&P indicated In order to optimize the therapeutic benefit of medication therapy and minimize or prevent potential adverse consequences, facility staff, attending physician, and the pharmacistperform ongoing monitoring for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, facility failed to ensure: 1. There was a physician's justification for the use of antianxiety medication Xanax (a medication used to help reduce symptoms of aniety disorders) for use beyond 14 days in one of three selected residents for unnecessary medication review (Resident 53). 2. A physician signature was completed on informed consents for psychotherapeutic medications for one of 25 sampled residents (Resident 85). These failures had the potential for Resident 53 to be on unnecesary medication Xanax and the potential for Resident 85 not being informed of their medications and the potential side effects of the psychotropic medications. Findings: 1. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/5/25 at 11:00 a.m. the medication administration record (MAR) dated January 2025 indicated an order of Xanax 0.25 mg by mouth as needed for anxiety started on 12/17/24 with duration of 90 days. Infection Preventionist (IP) nurse, who is in charge of psychotropic monitoring stated last progress note received from the provider was dated 1/14/25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 23 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dispose of expired medications per policy and procedure. This failure had the potential for expired medications to be administered to residents. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/6/25, starting at 8:53 a.m., with licensed nurse (LN 4), three expired medications were found in medication cart two. One vial of Latanoprost 0.005% solution (a medication used to treat high eye pressure) one vial of Prednisolone Acetate 1% (a medication used to relieve symptoms such as swelling and redness) and one vial of Brinzolamide 1% (a medication used to treat high eye pressure). All three medications had an expiration date of 2/4/25. The LN 4 verbalized all three medications were expired and needed to be placed in the waste container in the medication room. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Nursing Administration subject Storage of Medications undated, indicated in part Expired medications will be removed from use, for appropriate disposal.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-07 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician order of renal diet no added salt (NAS) order did not have a salt packet on the lunch tray for one of one sampled resident (Resident 82) who was on dialysis treatment. This failure had the potential for Resident 82 to have fluid retention for an already compromised condition (dialysis). Findings: During an observation on 2/05/25 at 12:15 p.m. of the lunch tray check and distribution process, in the hallway outside of resident rooms, Resident 82's lunch tray had a packet of salt. Upon checking the tray card for Resident 82, the diet order indicated renal diet. During an interview on 2/06/25 at 9:40 a.m. with the Registered Dietician (RD), the RD acknowledged that Resident 82's diet order is renal, should be no added sodium (NAS) and should not have salt packets added to meals/on trays. During an interview on 2/06/25 at 11:30 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD) who was in charge of verifying the resident meal trays, the DSD stated the salt packet was not removed because the meal…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their cleaning policy and procedure (P&P) when: 1. A floor drain in the dry goods storage area and the floors were not maintained in a sanitary manner. 2. Two of two ice chests used to distribute ice to residents were not cleaned before and after use. These failures had the potential to cause food borne illness to a highly susceptible resident population. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 02/04/25 at 9:23 a.m., with the Registered Dietician (RD) and the Dietary Assistant Manager (DAM), extensive debris and grime was visible in and around the floor drain in the dry storage area. Produce (red tomatoes/a potato), food scraps, and trash debris were observed behind, and under, metal racks of the walk-in refrigerator in the dry storage area and behind the ice machine on the floor. DAM and RD acknowledged the drain was dirty and the floor in the walk-in refrigerator appeared like it had not been swept or mopped. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. During an observation on 2/4/25 at 10:21 a.m. Resident 49 was observed to be sleeping in bed with head slightly elevated, with nasal cannula tubing without label connected to oygen concentrator running at 2 liters per minute. There was an intravenous fluid IV 5% Dextrose running by gravity at 10-15 drops per minute, lines was observed to have label but without date and nurse's initial. During an interview on 2/4/25 at 10:30 a.m., certified nurse assistant (CNA6) confirmed there was no label on the oxygen tubing , and the label on the IV fluid did not have nurse's initial and there was no date making it impossible to know who and when the fluid was started. During the interview on 2/6/25 at 2:45 p.m. with the assistant director of nursing (ADON), ADON stated the tubings and IV fluids needed to be labeled dated and signed per policy. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Oygen Therapy, dated 11/2024, P&P indicated it is the facility policy to administer oxygen in a safe manner, with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-07 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to answer call lights per policy and procedure, for one of 25 sampled residents (Resident 104) and one unsampled Resident (Resident 54) when: 1. Staff turned off Resident 54's call light and left the room, without addressing Resident 54's concern. 2. Call light was turned off by staff without meeting the request/needs for Resident 104. These facility failures had the potential for Resident 54 and Resident 104's needs to go unmet and/or result in a delay in care. 1. During an observation on 2/6/25, starting at 8:37 a.m., Resident 54's call light was observed on. An unidentified staff member (USM 1) entered Resident 54's room, turned off the call light, and left the room. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/6/25, at 9:00 a.m., with Resident 54, Resident 54's call light was activated for a second time. Resident 54 was asked if USM 1 had addressed Resident 54's previous concern before leaving the room. Resident 54 verbalized no,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-07 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and Record Review the facility failed to ensure the safety of patients, staff and visitors when OXYGEN IN USE signs were not placed outside resident rooms per policy and procedure for 2 of 25 sampled residents (Resident 49 and Resident 57). This failure had the potential to result in an increase fire risk while oxygen is in use. Findings: During a review of facility policy and procedure titled, Oxygen Therapy, dated 11/2024, indicated, PROCEDURES: Equipment: . NO SMOKING/OXYGEN IN USE signs. During a concurrent observation and interview on 02/07/25 at 11:12 a.m. with Housekeeping/Maintenance/Central Supply Supervisor (HS) in hall outside room [ROOM NUMBER]C, there was not an OXYGEN IN USE sign outside room. HS stated that it is the nurses responsibility to make sure there is an OXYGEN IN USE sign is placed outside of resident rooms when they are on oxygen and stated that Resident 49 was on oxygen in room [ROOM NUMBER]C, and HS confirmed there was not an OXYGEN IN USE sign outside…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-31 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate and necessary information was communicated to the receiving home health agency (HHA) for a safe ,effective transition/continuance of care when the HHA was not informed of Resident 1's pressure ulcers and moisture associated skin damage (MASD) in the groin, scrotal, and perirectal areas. This failure resulted in Resident 1's responsible party not knowing of the skin condition, delaying the necessary skin treatment until HHA came and did the assessment finding a stage 2 ( skin opening on the first layer of skin). Findings: During a review of Resident 1's, admission Record (AR), dated 01/15/25, the AR indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including, pneumonia, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, acute pulmonary edema, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, dysphagia, mild cognitive impairment, history of falling, and other diagnoses. Resident 1 was discharged to home on [DATE] at 18:39 with home health agency…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-31 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to communicate necessary information to a resident, the resident representative, and to the continuing care provider at the time of an anticipated discharge to one of one resident (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to result in provision of inappropriate and untimely care. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's, admission Record (AR), dated 01/15/25, the record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including, pneumonia, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, acute pulmonary edema, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, dysphagia, mild cognitive impairment, history of falling, and other diagnoses. Resident 1 was discharged to home on [DATE] at 18:39. During a review of nursing notes for Resident 1, dated 1/09/25 at 09:20, titled Discharge Summary, indicated, Instructions for Ongoing Care: .Treatments: Facial redness/rash, apply clotrimazole cream 1% and monitor for progression. bilateral groin, scrotal, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-31 · tag F0837 — isolatedEstablish a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies for managing and operating the facility and appoints a properly licensed administrator responsible for managing the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Late Entry documentation policy and procedure (P&P) met professional standards of timely documentation when P&P titled Late Entry, indicated in part There is not a time limit to writing a late entry. This resulted in a twelve-day delay of discharge planning notes to be available in the medical record of one of one resident (Resident 1). This failure has the potential for staff to add late entries without regards to timeframe or validity on the source of information and compromise timely continuity of care to the residents. Findings: During an interview on 01/15/25 at 12:34 with Director of Nursing (DON), DON acknowledged Resident 1 did not receive discharge information and left facility without signing discharge paperwork. The DON deferred further questions to the staff, social services director (SSD) and licensed nurse (LN2), that handled the discharge process whom she said were not available for interviews. Requested facility Discharge policy, the discharge paperwork that should have been signed by R1 or R1's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-31 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a complete medical record in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for one of one sampled resident (Resident 1), when Resident 1's medical record did not have discharge planning notes. This failure had the potential to cause miscommunication and confusion amongst members of the healthcare team and not implementing discharge care planning affecting the resident's continuity of care. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's, admission Record (AR), dated 01/15/25, the record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including, pneumonia, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, acute pulmonary edema, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, dysphagia, mild cognitive impairment, history of falling, and other diagnoses. Resident 1 was discharged to home on [DATE] at 18:39 with home health services. During an interview on 01/15/25 at 12:34 with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated Resident 1 left with his…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-04 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to: 1. Document fluid intake accurately for 1 out of 2 sampled residents (Resident 1). 2. Document fluid intake accurately for 1 out of 2 sampled residents (Resident 2). This failure had potential to affect the hydration status of Resident 1 and may have contributed to Resident 1 being sent out to the emergency room (ER) for shortness of breath; and admitted to the hospital for sepsis and pneumonia. This failure had potential to affect the hydration status of Resident 2 and may have contributed to Resident 2 being sent out to the ER for altered mental status; and admitted to the hospital for pneumonia, urinary tract infection (UTI) and sepsis. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physician Orders dated 11/6/24-11/16/24, the physician orders indicated to record intake each shift and record the total daily intake in ml/cc (milliliters/cubic centimeters). The physician orders indicated to calculate the 24 hours intake on the night shift. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Intake Record and the Calculated 24-hours Intake…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-05 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the family representative was notified of a change in condition for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in Resident 1's family member verbalizing feelings of mistrust and doubting the care the facility staff provided. Findings: During a review of the facility's admission record, this indicated Resident 1 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] and had conditions listed as urinary tract infection and chronic kidney disease (involving a gradual loss of kidney function). During an interview on 5/24/24 at 4:10 p.m. with Licensed Nurse 1 (LN1), LN1 stated on 5/6/24, Resident 1 was observed sluggish and lethargic, and the physician ordered urinalysis. During an interview on 6/3/24 at 2:30 p.m. with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), IPN stated urine test result on 5/8/24 showed blood in the urine indicating an infection. IPN confirmed there was no documentation of notification of the urine test and result to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper documentation of intake and output for one (resident 1) of two sampled residents, was completed as specified in the care plan. This failure could lead to facility staff being unaware of the resident 1's gastrointestinal functions, fluid balance, renal function, abnormal losses, and bowel movements that potentially contributed to resident 1's weight loss. Findings: During a review of resident 1's care plan (CP) indicated resident 1 is, At risk for weight loss, malnutrition, dehydration, and fluid and electrolyte imbalance due recent surgery. The interventions included, Monitor the intake and output every shift. Record total daily intake and output. Weekly average intake and output in ml. Document the quality, color, odor, and consistency of urine, patient's hydration status. Report to physician the discrepancy in fluid intake or fluid balance every shift. During a review of the Nutrition Evaluation dated 3/19/24, the Nutrition Evaluation indicated Resident 1's anticipated fluid needs were, 1500-1800…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-07-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff were properly following isolation precautions to prevent the spread of disease for two of 10 Sampled residents (Residents 552 and 96) when: 1. Staff member removed their used personal protective equipment (PPE) outside the isolation room ( supposed to be inside prior to exiting ) and did not perform hand hygiene after removing their PPE. 2. Facility policy and procedure related to the separation of clean and soiled items in Utility Rooms was not followed. 3. Expired medical supplies were not identified and removed from medical supply cabinets. 4. Remove contaminated isolation gown before exiting the resident room. These failures had the potential to transmit infectious microorganisms and increase the risk of infection for residents, staff, and visitors. Findings: 1. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:52 a.m., a license nurse (LN 2) was observed removing contaminated (soiled ) PPEs (isolation gowns and gloves)) in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-14 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure ventilation covers/panels were clean and free of dust when : 1. The ventilation cover and window tracks in room [ROOM NUMBER] was found with thick dust and dirt. 2. The ventilation cover outside room [ROOM NUMBER] was dirty. This failure have the potential for unclean and dirty air from the ventilations to circulate around which could cause respiratory infections inside the facility (residents, staff and visitors ). Findings: 1.During the facility initial tour on 7/11/23 at 10:27 a.m. inside room [ROOM NUMBER], the ventilation cover was observed with thick dust and the window tracks with piled black dirt. During an interview and concurrent observation on 7/13/23 at 9:05 a.m. with the facility Housekeeping Manager (HM), the HM acknowledged the vent cover and windows were dusty and dirty and were not cleaned by the weekend housekeeper. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-14 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two unsampled residents (Residents 84 and 100) assessements were accurate when : 1.The Minimum Data Set Assessment ((MDS- residents assessement ) Section K (Nutrition) for Resident 84 was not answered accurately and with missing infromation. This failure have the potential for an inaccurate assessment of the resident's nutrional and dietary status which can affect the plan of care . 2. For Resident 100, the Section A (discharge infromation) in the MDS have an inaccurate information. This failure have the potential for inappropriate discharge plans or information that can affect the resident's rights to admission or discharge. Findings: 1. During a review of the facility's Resident Matrix ((RM) used to identify pertinent care categories for: all residents), dated 07/11/2023, the RM indicated Resident 84 was receiving tube feedings (any type of tube that can deliver food/nutritional substances/ fluids/medications directly into…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-14 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three unsampled residents (Resident 23) had accurate documentation in their medical record. For Resident 23, this failure resulted in an inaccurate representation of a change in their physical condition. Findings: During a review of Resident 23's Progress Note (PN), dated 5/11/23 at 10 a.m., the PN indicated, Resident c/o [complains of] SOB [shortness of breath] . resident with productive cough, bil [both sides] lung wheezing . new orders to send resident to ER . called 911, resident left facility at 1020 with paramedics. During a review of Resident 23's PN, dated 5/11/23 at 1:59 p.m., the PN indicated, No respiratory changes observed. No Respiratory treatments. During an interview on 7/14/23 at 10:11 a.m. with a licensed nurse (LN3), LN3 stated, I wrote the progress note after the resident was discharged . LN 3 also stated, I did the assessment at about eight am and recorded it at one fifty-nine pm. LN3 further stated, There wasn't a way to change the time of the documentation. During a review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2020-01-30 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document code status (type of emergency treatment) for six of 22 sampled residents (Resident 40, 53, 56, 85, 91 and 107). This facility failure had the potential for Resident 40, 53, 56, 85, 91 and 107 not to receive life saving measures in case of emergency as per the residents wishes. Findings: During a review of the clinical record for Resident 56, the document titled, POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment), dated [DATE], indicated, the choice for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) was, Do Not Attempt Resuscitation/DNR. The document titled, Order Summary Report, dated [DATE], did not contain an order for DNR. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 85, the document titled, POLST, dated [DATE], indicated, the choice for CPR was, Attempt Resuscitation/CPR. The document titled, Order Summary Report, dated [DATE], did not contain an order for Full Code. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 107, the document…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-01-30 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident care equipment in a safe and clean manner for one of 22 sampled residents (Resident 214). This facility failure had the potential to cause injury/infection and unsafe environment for Resident 214. Findings: During an observation and concurrent interview on 1/27/2020, at 2:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) in room [ROOM NUMBER]-B, a bedside commode was observed with rust on the metal framing, and a broken hinge on the lid. The DON indicated that this was not acceptable to have in a resident's room. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Equipment Maintenance, dated 05/2007, the policy and procedure indicated, It is the policy of this facility to establish policies and procedures for routine and non-routine care of equipment and to ensure that equipment remains in good working order for resident and staff safety.
- Potential for harm · D2020-01-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pressure relieving device was in place per the physician orders for one of two sampled residents (Resident 56) with a pressure injury. This facility failure had the potential for Resident 56 to experience worsening of a pressure injury. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/28/2020, at 4:44 p.m. with a licensed nurse (LN5) and Resident 56, Resident 56 was observed to have a bandage on his right heel, and a Prevalon foam boot (a device to help minimize pressure, friction and shear on the feet, heels and ankles of non-ambulatory individuals by off-loading the heel, it delivers total, continuous heel pressure relief) was lying on the bed beside the resident. Resident 56 stated, I have a sore on my right heel. LN5 stated that the boot should be on Resident 56's foot. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 56, a document titled, Medication Administration Record indicates an order for, Sage Prevalon to both heels every shift, dated 12/11/19, and is documented that the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-01-30 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the menu for one out of 30 residents (Resident 79) on a consistent carbohydrate diet, when Resident 79 was served a dessert with sugar instead of the sugar-free dessert indicated on the menu. This deficient practice had the potential to result in an increased blood sugar level for Resident 79, which could lead to health complications and require avoidable medical treatment. Findings: During a review of Resident 79's clinical record, the clinical record indicted, Resident 79 was admitedd to the facility with diagnoses including, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (an inability of the body to control blood sugar); Chronic Kidney disease, Stage 3 (when the organs that filter the blood are damaged and can be worsened by untreated high blood sugar); and need for assistance with personal care. During a review of the History and Physical form for Resident 79, the form dated 2/27/19, indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of the physician's orders for Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-01-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary environment was provided for one of 22 sampled residents (Resident 103) to help prevent the development of infection when the connection tip of Resident 103's bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP - a device that helps with breathing) oxygen tubing was observed uncovered on the floor next to a used urinal. This facility failure had the potential to result in contamination of the resident's oxygen equipment and placed Resident 103 at risk for infection. Findings During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Oxygen Equipment, dated 5/2010, the policy and procedure indicated, It is the policy of this facility to maintain all oxygen therapy equipment in a clean and sanitary manner .temporarily not being used, it will be covered loosely to prevent contamination. During a review of the, Order Summary Report, dated 1/3/20, for Resident 103, the order summary report indicated, May use own BiPAP with current setting, w/O2 bleeder [an adapter connected to the oxygen tubing] at 3LPM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-01-30 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure education was provided, and an influenza consent/declination form was signed for one of five sampled residents (Resident 24). This facility failure violated Resident 24's right to be educated in regards to the risks and benefits of the vaccine, in order to make an informed choice to receive or not to receive influenza vaccination. Findings: During a review of the clinical record for Resident 24, a document titled, Informed Consent for Influenza, Pneumococcal Vaccines Immunizations, dated 6/29/19, indicated, The resident wishes to have the influenza immunization (seasonal flu vaccine that protects against the influenza viruses) annually, signed by responsible person (RP). Staff documented on the same form that the resident had, Refused, the vaccine on 10/4/19, 10/11/19, and 10/22/19. There was no annual form on the chart stating that Resident 24 or the RP declined in writing, or was aware of the risks/benefits of receiving or not receiving the annual flu vaccine. During an interview on 1/30/2020, at 10:42 a.m., the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE ENSIGN GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/15/2005 |
| ALBRECHTSEN, TYLER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2017 |
| VALIVETI, VINOD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2016 |
| WILLITS, ADAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/24/2018 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/26/2008 |
| CULLIFER, JARED | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| PORT, BARRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/20/2005 |
| SATO, AMI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/09/2024 |
| CARETRUST GP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2005 |
| CARETRUST REIT INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2005 |
| CTR PARTNERSHIP LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2005 |
| GRANADA INVESTMENTS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2005 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the California Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 555770. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-07, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.