Stonebrook Post Acute

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

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.

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.

57.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 230 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 24.5% 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 106 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 0.59 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 88% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 37% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 109.7 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.57 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 4.22 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.90 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

25 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited beforedisputed · IIDR2026-03-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  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 one of three sampled Residents' (Resident 1) was free from accidents during incontinence care (the management and support for individuals with involuntary urine or stool leakage, aiming to maintain hygiene, skin health, dignity, and quality of life).This failure resulted in Resident 1 falling out of bed and sustaining a bruise (discolored skin on the body, caused by a blow or impact rupturing underlying blood vessels) to the forehead, perinasal hematoma (accumulation of blood within the nasal septum, which is the wall of cartilage and bone that divides the two nostrils), right elbow abrasion (a superficial, minor injury where the top layer of skin is scraped or rubbed away), and right femoral fracture (a serious, high-impact break in the longest, strongest bone in the leg, usually caused by severe trauma like car accidents or falls). During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, printed on 2/5/26, the admission Record indicated…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure 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 store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when:The dishwashing machine failed to reach the required sanitization temperature.Two dietary staff did not wear required beard restraints while in food preparation areas.This failure had the potential to result in food contamination and foodborne illnesses for a medically vulnerable population with a census of 114 residents.Findings:During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/22/26 at 1:53 p.m. in the Main Kitchen with Dietary Aide (DA) 1, DA 1 was operating the facility's dishwashing machine with a stationary rack and dual operating temperatures. The temperature gauges on the machine, labeled Rinse 180oF (Fahrenheit, unit of measurement for temperature) (MIN [minimum]), indicated a temperature of 170oF during the rinse cycle. DA 1 confirmed the temperatures were not rising to the minimum required temperature of 180oF for the rinse cycles.During an interview on 6/22/26 at 2:21 p.m. with the Dietary Supervisor…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide 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 ensure infection prevention and control practices was consistently implemented for three (Resident 88, 72 and 38) of 23 sampled residents when: Airborne Precautions (infection control measures used to prevent the spread of illnesses transmitted by tiny pathogens suspended in the air) for Resident 88 was not followed when the door to resident's room was open.Registered Nurse (RN) 1 did not wear a gown to administer antibiotics intravenously (IV, route directly into the bloodstream) to Resident 72 on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, infection control intervention used to reduce the transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) by wearing gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities). The Oxygen (O2) concentrator (a medical device that draws in ambient air and delivers concentrated oxygen) for Resident 38 had a dusty filter.These failures had the potential to increase the risk of transmission of infectious organisms…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0552 — isolated
  Ensure 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

  Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the rights of one of 23 sampled residents (Resident 3), when Resident 3 did not give informed consent for an antidepressant (medications used to treat major depressive disorder-severe mental health condition causing persistent sadness, hopelessness, and a loss of interest in activities) medication.This failure resulted in Resident 3 not being informed of potential side effects or complications and the ability to refuse treatment.During a review of Resident 3's Order Summary (OS), dated 4/28/26, the OS indicated Resident 3 had Venlafaxine (antidepressant) ordered for major depressive disorder.During a review of Resident 3's Psychotherapeutic Drug Informed Consent Forms (IC), there was no IC before 6/22/26 for Venlafaxine.During an interview on 6/25/26 8:37 a.m. with Supervisor Registered Nurse (SRN) 1, SRN 1 stated the purpose of informed consent for antidepressants was to ensure the resident and resident's representative understood the indications for use, symptoms, and side effects before making a decision about…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  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 safe smoking practices were implemented and monitored for one of 23 sampled residents (Resident 52) who used the designated smoking area. This failure placed Resident 52 and other residents who accessed the smoking area at risk for an uncontrolled fire and potential burns.Findings:During an observation on 6/24/26 at 7:45 a.m. the designated smoking area was observed to have no safety equipment, including the absence of a fire extinguisher or fire blanket. Multiple used cigarette butts were noted discarded in a flower planter rather than in proper receptacles. During an observation on 6/24/26 at 9 a.m. Resident 52 was noted to be smoking in the designated smoking area. During an interview on 6/24/26 at 2:35 p.m. with Administrator (ADM), ADM stated, there was no safety equipment placed in the smoking area. The ADM further stated he did not know who was responsible for monitoring the smoking area.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Smoking Policy-Residents dated July 2017,…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-29 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor 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 for one of two sampled residents, (Resident 2) the Physician's Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) was completed and the Do not Resuscitate physician order was followed during a medical emergency. This failure resulted in medical interventions for CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - an emergency technique combining chest compressions and rescue breaths to maintain blood flow and oxygen to the brain and vital organs when someone's heart has stopped (cardiac arrest) and defibrillation (uses an electrical shock inside or outside the body to stop an abnormal heart rhythm in the heart's ventricles to allow the heart to start a normal rhythm again) on Resident 2 which were not requested. During a review of Resident 2's admission record (AR), the AR indicated Resident 2 was originally admitted [DATE], initially admitted on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. AR indicated Resident 2 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-29 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  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 results of the investigations of an abuse allegation were reported timely to the State Agency (SA, which is the California Department of Public Health, CDPH), for one sampled resident (Resident 1) when Resident 1 alleged that staff was rough with him.This failure had the potential to compromise the safety of all residents in the facility from unreported investigations and results of the investigations. Review of Resident 1's admission record, undated, indicated that he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes, urine retention, and hyperlipidemia.Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment and care screening tool used to guide care) dated 8/23/25 indicated Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- a short scanner to help detect cognitive impairment) score was 14, indicating no cognitive impairment.During a review of the social services note (SSN) note dated 8/7/25, the SSN note indicated,…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-12-22 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
  Honor 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 maintain a homelike environment when three out of four sampled rooms (Room A, B, and C) were observed to have privacy curtains that were worn and frayed along the bottom and side edges, detracting from the homelike appearance of the resident rooms. This failure had the potential to negatively affect the residents' quality of life and homelike environment.During a concurrent observation and interview with Housekeeping Supervisor (HS) on 12/18/25 at 9:29 a.m., the bottom hems of the privacy curtains in room A and B were frayed with loose threads that were hanging down, and the fabric linings/nettings were exposed and detached near the lower edge. The side hem of the privacy curtain in room C appeared worn and frayed. The HS stated the curtains were torn and in need of replacement. HS stated there was no schedule for the facility staff to routinely check and inspect the curtains; instead, inspections were conducted on an as-needed basis. HS stated checking the condition of the privacy curtains was on his to-do…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 3 (Residents #24, #54, and #87) of 18 sampled residents. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Health Information Record Manual, revised [DATE], specified, The assessment portion (Minimum Data Set - MDS) will describe the resident's ability to perform daily life functions and significant impairment in functional capacity. 1. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #24 on [DATE]. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of spinal stenosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, and major depressive disorder. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of [DATE], revealed Resident #24 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident's code status…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to refer the resident to the appropriate state-designated authority for a level II preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) evaluation once a resident was identified to have a new mental illness diagnosis for 1 (Resident #22) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for PASARR. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Preadmission Screening & Resident Review, revised 11/30/2023, revealed, 1. Facility will: a. Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program under Medicaid to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing to include: F644 483.20(c) i. Incorporating the recommendations from the [PASARR] level II determination and the [PASARR] evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care. ii. Referring all level II residents and all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II resident review upon a significant change in status…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0700 — isolated
  Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assess a resident for the use of a bed rail for 2 (Resident #20 and Resident #34) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for accidents. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Proper Use of Bed Rail Policy, dated 01/30/2025, indicated, 1. An assessment will be made to determine the resident's symptoms or reason for using bed rails. This assessment may be completed at the following intervals: upon admission, readmission, quarterly and change of condition status. 1. An admission Record indicated the facility readmitted Resident #20 on 10/30/2021. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of polymyalgia rheumatica (an inflammatory disorder that caused muscle pain and stiffness) and a history of falling. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/12/2025, revealed Resident #20 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.

Fines & penalties

$12,735 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $12,735 — penalty dated 2026-03-23

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner 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 $939K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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