The Dorothy & Joseph Goldberg Healthcare Center
211 Saxony Road, Encinitas, CA 92024 · Non profit - Corporation · 58 certified beds · (760) 632-0081 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 (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (23% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- a high number of inspection citations overall (30) — 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) | 5 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 | 18.5% | 10.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.0% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 6.8% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 7.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 0.7% | 1.6% | 3.3% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.1% | 9.8% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.6% | 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 | 1.5% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 10.2% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.3% | 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 | 98.9% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.1% | 23.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.4% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.31 | 2.25 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.50 | 1.57 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
75.1% 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 184 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.4% 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 125 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 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 75.1%CMS range 67.3–80.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 16.6%CMS range 13.3–19.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 62.4% | 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 | 54.4% | 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 | 52.0% | 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 | 99.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.6% | 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 | 1.3% | 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 | 7.7%CMS range 4.8–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.91 | 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 58 beds and averages 48.3 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 5.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.31 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 5.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.78 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 23% is below 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.
30 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-03 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 and inventory medications brought in by the family, following a hospital discharge. The facility did not identify if the medication label matched the current physician's orders, resulting in a medication error for one of three residents (Resident 1), when reviewed for Pharmacy Services. This failure resulted in Resident 1 receiving a three milligram (mg) dose instead of 1.5 mg dose, as ordered by the physician. Findings:An unannounced visit was made to the facility on 9/3/25, after a complaint was filed regarding a medication error.Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included kidney transplant, per the facility's Resident Face Sheet.Resident 1's medical record was reviewed on 9/3/25:According to the physician's order, dated 8/3/25,.Give tacrolimus (medication to prevent organ rejection), 0.5 milligrams (mg) amt: 3 capsules to = 1.5 mg oral (by mouth) every 12 hours (8 am and 8 pm) s/p Renal (kidney)…
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 before2025-07-24 · 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 verify if one of 15 sampled residents (Resident 39) had an advance directive. In addition, the facility did not provide written information to Resident 39 related to formulating an advance directive.As a result, this had the potential to affect Resident 39's care and treatment in the event the resident could not make decisions for himself.Findings:A review of Resident 39's Resident Face Sheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].On 7/24/25 at 11:40 A.M., an interview and record review was conducted with the social services designee (SSD). The SSD stated it was her job to check if residents had an advance directive upon admission. This would then be discussed during the resident's first care conference. The SSD reviewed Resident 39's clinical record and stated there was no documentation the resident had an advance directive. The SSD stated she did not verify if Resident 39 had an advance directive. The SSD stated prior to being…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 provide written notice of transfer and written notice of bed-hold policy to one of four residents (Resident 7) reviewed for transfer and discharge.As a result, there was the potential for residents to be uninformed about their transfer and bed-hold rights when sent to the hospital.Findings:A review of Resident 7's Resident Face Sheet indicated the resident was readmitted on [DATE].A review of Resident 7's Resident Progress Notes dated 4/27/25, indicated the resident was transferred to the hospital for evaluation of a fever. Resident 7 was not sent via 911 services.A review of Resident 7's Resident Progress Notes dated 7/1/25, indicated the resident was transferred to the hospital for evaluation of a suspected urinary tract infection. Resident 7 was not sent via 911 services.On 7/23/25 at 12 P.M., an interview and record review was conducted with the director of staff development (DSD). The DSD reviewed Resident 7's clinical record and stated 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 · D2025-07-24 · 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 accurately code the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS, a comprehensive assessment) for two of 18 residents (Resident 39, and Resident 51). This deficient practice had the potential to affect the residents by delaying resident care needs and provided inaccurate information to the Federal database.1. A review of Resident 39's Resident Face Sheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 7/21/25 at 3:45 P.M., an observation and interview was conducted with Resident 39. Resident 39 stated he was continent of urine but that nursing staff put a urinary catheter on him at night. Resident 39 stated he did not know why and that it was the nursing staff who decided to put a urinary catheter on him. On 7/22/25 at 8:12 A.M., an observation of Resident 39 was conducted. Resident 39 was lying in bed and he was utilizing a urinary catheter. The catheter was draining clear, yellow urine into a drainage bag. A review of 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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 develop a baseline care plan for one of 15 sampled residents (Resident 49) that addressed the resident's communication needs.This failure had the potential to impact the resident's quality of care and treatment. Cross reference F676.Findings: Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] per the facility's Resident Face Sheet. A record review of Resident 49's Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS, a comprehensive assessment) Section A Identification Information, A1110 Language dated 7/13/25, indicated Resident 49's preferred language was a foreign language. Documentation on Section A Identification Information included .b. Do you need or want an interpreter to communicate with a doctor or health care staff . Answer - yes A record review of Resident 49's written care plans indicated there was no baseline care plan for language/communication preferences. On 7/21/2025 at 8:30 A.M., an interview and observation was conducted with Resident 49.…
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 before2025-07-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 15 sampled residents (Resident 15 and 39) had resident-specific written care plans developed for:1.The use of an external urinary catheter (condom catheter) for Resident 39.2. Resident 15's medication administration preferences.As a result, there was the potential residents' needs would not be met.Findings: 1. A review of Resident 39's Resident Face Sheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include urinary tract infection (UTI). On 7/21/25 at 3:45 P.M., an observation and interview was conducted with Resident 39. Resident 39 stated he was continent of urine but that nursing staff put a urinary catheter on him at night. Resident 39 stated he did not know why and that it was the nursing staff who decided to put a urinary catheter on him. On 7/22/25 at 8:12 A.M., an observation of Resident 39 was conducted. Resident 39 was lying in bed and he was utilizing a urinary catheter. 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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 provide necessary language services for one of 15 sampled residents (Resident 49).As a result, there was the potential for miscommunication to impact the resident's care and quality of life. Cross reference F655.Findings:Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] per the facility's Resident Face Sheet. A record review of Resident 49's Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS - a comprehensive assessment) Section A Identification Information, A1110 Language dated 7/13/25 indicated Resident 49's preferred language was a foreign language. Documentation on Section A Identification Information included .b. Do you need or want an interpreter to communicate with a doctor or health care staff? Answer - yes On 7/21/2025 at 8:30 A.M., an interview and observation was conducted with Resident 49. Resident 49 only spoke a foreign language. The Infection Preventionist (IP) came into the room and stated if he wanted to communicate with Resident 49 he…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 consistently provide restorative nursing assistant (RNA , a staff who focuses on maintaining and improving resident's functional abilities) services for one of one sampled resident (Resident 32) reviewed for decreased range of motion (ROM, refers to how far one can move a joint or a body part, like an arm or leg, in different directions). This failure had the potential to cause contractures (stiffening of muscles), decreased ROM, and decreased mobility.Findings: Resident 32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis which included stroke and quadriplegia (paralysis below the neck that affects all of a person's limbs), as per the facility's Resident Face Sheet. Resident 32's History and Physical (H&P,) dated 4/24/25, indicated Resident 32 did not have the capacity to make decisions. Per the H&P, Resident 32 was dependent on the facility staff on her activities of daily living (ADLs, basic tasks a person does to take care of…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 15 residents (Resident 39) reviewed for urinary incontinence, was:1. Evaluated and reassessed to determine if bladder continence or incontinence was present through an incontinence/bladder management program.2. Provided scheduled two-hour toileting based on the initial bladder assessment.3. Had a clear indication for the use of an external catheter (condom catheter) at night.These failures had the potential for Resident 39 to miss the opportunity to regain urinary continence through bladder retraining. In addition, this had the potential for the resident to develop urinary tract infections (UTI).Findings:A review of Resident 39's Resident Face Sheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include UTI.On 7/21/25 at 3:45 P.M., an observation and interview was conducted with Resident 39. Resident 39 stated he was continent of urine but that nursing staff put a urinary catheter on him at…
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 before2025-07-24 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 pharmaceutical services were provided for two residents (Resident 7 and 34) according to acceptable standards of practice when:1.Licensed nurse (LN) 11 did not follow the prescription label and gave Resident 34's levofloxacin (antibiotic) with calcium which was contraindicated.2.Resident 7's controlled drug record (CDR) for oxycodone (controlled pain medication) did not reconcile with the medication administration record (MAR).As a result there was the potential for Resident 34 to experience the adverse effect of not receiving the intended antibiotic dosage. In addition, there was the potential for Resident 7's controlled drug to be diverted (when a medication is taken for use by someone other than whom it is prescribed). Findings:1. A review of Resident 34's Face Sheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Vitamin deficiency, local infection of the skin and subcutaneous (under the skin)…
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 20 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-24 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 its pharmacist consultant (PC) identified medication irregularities during the monthly medication regimen review (MRR) for two sampled residents (Resident 33 and 39).As a result, there was the potential for residents to receive medications with inappropriate duration and in excessive dosages. Cross reference F757. 1.A review of Resident 39's Resident Face Sheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include urinary tract infection (UTI). A review of Resident 39's History and Physical dated 6/6/25, indicated the resident was in the hospital from [DATE] through 6/3/25, and .For presumed urinary tract infection, the patient was treated with Rocephin [antibiotic].The patient's Rocephin was completed after a 5-day course on 6/1/25 and the patient was restarted on penicillin [antibiotic]. It was suspected that the patient had osteomyelitis [bone infection] of the left second toe. The patient's urine culture on…
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 · D2025-07-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 15 sampled residents (Resident 33 and 39) were free from unnecessary medications when both residents were given antibiotics without verification of a stop date. As a result, there was the potential for Resident 33 and 39 to experience antibiotic resistance (when bacteria or other microorganisms evolve to become resistant to the drugs designed to kill them). Findings: 1.A review of Resident 33's Resident Face Sheet indicated the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Unspecified dementia (a disease affecting cognition and memory), severe, with agitation. A review of Resident 33's physician orders, dated 6/13/25, indicated an order for nitrofurantoin macrocrystal (antibiotic) 100 milligrams (mg) one capsule once a day for UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) Prophylaxis with no stop date. A review of Resident 33's medication administration record (MAR) from 6/14/25 through 7/23/25, indicated the resident received…
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 before2025-07-24 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — isolatedProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
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 food and nutrition services staff was able to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the department, when one Dietary Aide (DA 22) incorrectly demonstrated how to calibrate a food thermometer. This failure in staff competence could led to incorrect food temperature, which could increase the risk of foodborne illness in the resident population of 47. Findings: On 7/23/25 at 11:22 A.M., an observation of DA 22 calibrating the food thermometer, with the presence of the Registered Dietitian (RD) and an interview was conducted with DA 22. DA 22 put some ice into a glass then put some water into it. DA 22 immersed the food thermometer into the glass with the probe touching the bottom and side of the glass. DA 22 stated he was unable to get the right temperature to calibrate the food thermometer. DA 22 asked Do I have to put more ice in it? On 7/24/25, a review of DA 22's culinary competency assessment tool was conducted. The assessment tool indicated DA 22 was signed off as competent on…
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 before2025-07-24 · 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 ensure safe and sanitary measures were met in the kitchen during dietary operations according to standards of practice when: 1.Food item had brown spots and was not able to be served to the residents. 2. Cool down process (hot food must be cooled within 2 hours to 70 degree Fahrenheit, additional 4 hours to less than 41 degree Fahrenheit, total of 6 hours to cool down hot foods) was not properly followed per the facility's policy on handling potentially hazardous food (PHF, means any food which consists in whole or in part of milk or milk products, eggs, meat, poultry, rice ,fish, shellfish, edible crustacean, raw-seed sprouts, heat-treated vegetables and vegetable products and other ingredients in a form capable of supporting rapid and progressive growth of microorganism) item. These findings had the potential to expose the facility's residents to unsafe and unsanitary food practices that could lead to widespread foodborne illnesses.Findings: 1. On 7/21/25 at 8:07 A.M., an observation of the produce walk-in…
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 before2025-07-24 · 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 Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to implement their infection control policies and procedures when:1. Hand hygiene (washing hands or using hand sanitizer) was not offered to residents prior to eating in the dining room.2. Hand hygiene was not consistently performed during wound treatment. As a result there was a potential for cross contamination and transmission of infections to residents, staff, and visitors. 1a. On 7/21/25 at 11:20 A.M., an observation was conducted in the dining room. Two female residents in wheel chairs were being assisted by staff to table 10. Staff did not offer hand wipes or sanitizer to both residents. On 7/21/25 at 11:40 A.M., an observation of the female residents at table 10 was conducted. One of the two female residents was wheeled out of the dining room; Resident 42 remained seated and ate her lunch. Resident 42 held the bread roll with bare hands. On 7/21/25 at 12:40 P.M., an interview was conducted with Resident 42 from table 10. Resident 42…
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 · D2025-07-24 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 implement its antibiotic stewardship program when two sampled residents' (Resident 33 and 39) infections and antibiotic use was not monitored and reviewed June and July 2025.As a result, Resident 33 and 39 were both on antibiotics without verification of a stop date. This potentially excessive use of antibiotics had the potential to contribute to antibiotic resistance (when bacteria or other microorganisms evolve to become resistant to the drugs designed to kill them) in the facility. Findings: 1.A review of Resident 33's Resident Face Sheet indicated the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Unspecified dementia (a disease affecting cognition and memory), severe, with agitation. A review of Resident 33's physician orders, dated 6/13/25, indicated an order for nitrofurantoin macrocrystal (antibiotic) 100 milligrams (mg) one capsule once a day for UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) Prophylaxis with no stop date. 2. A review…
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 before2024-07-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 13 residents (Resident 151) had a physician ordered medication available to be administered. As a result, Resident 151 was not administered one of his medications for six days. Findings: A review of Resident 151's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 7/11/24 at 8:20 A.M., a medication administration observation was conducted with licensed nurse (LN) 3. LN 3 was observed preparing medications for Resident 151. LN 3 stated Resident 151's calcium carbonate with vitamin D 1250 milligrams-5 micrograms was not available for her to administer to the resident. A review of Resident 151's physician orders dated 7/5/24, indicated the resident was to receive calcium carbonated-vitamin D 500 mg tablet; 1250 milligram-5 micrograms once a day at 8 A.M. for the diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency. A review of Resident 151's medication administration record (MAR) indicated the resident's calcium…
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 · D2024-07-12 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the prn (as needed) guidelines for psychotropic medications (medications which alters the mind) for one of five residents (Resident 33) selected for Medication Review, when: 1. A specific behavior was not documented, indicating the necessity of a prn psychotropic medication; and 2. The physician did not document a rationale for the continued use of a prn psychotropic medication beyond the 14-day limit. This failure had the potential for Resident 33 to have increased risk of side effects and a prolonged duration of use. Findings: 1 Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain), per the facility's Resident Face Sheet. On 7/10/24 Resident 33's clinical record was viewed: According to the physician's order, dated 3/17/24, Lorazepam (a drug used to treat anxiety, which act on the brain and nerves), 0.5 milligrams (mg) give twice a day, by mouth, under…
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 · D2024-07-12 · 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 ensure information in one of 13 resident's (Resident 3) medical/clinical record was readily accessible. As a result, it could not be determined if Resident 3 had been administered a controlled medication (medication with high potential for abuse). Findings: A review of Resident 3's admission Record indicated the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 7/11/24 at 4 P.M., copies of Resident 3's physician's orders, medication administration record (MAR), and controlled drug record (CDR, a written record that tracked when a controlled medication was removed from supply) for the resident's lorazepam (a controlled medication) 0.5 milligram tablets was requested from the medical records director (MRD). The MRD confirmed the requested documents would be available by 8 A.M. the following day. On 7/12/24, Resident 3's lorazepam 0.5 mg order, MAR, and CDR were reviewed. Resident 3's CDR indicated the resident's lorazepam had been removed from supply…
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 before2024-07-12 · 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 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure meal assistance provided to one sampled resident (Resident 3) was conducted in a sanitary manner when certified nursing assistant (CNA) 1 did not perform hand hygiene (washing hands or using an alcohol-based hand rub) after assisting another resident and did not wear gloves while feeding Resident 3 a sandwich using her bare hands. This deficient practice had the potential to spread microorganisms and to cause foodborne illness among residents. Findings: A review of Resident 3's admission Record indicated the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include right sided weakness and paralysis following a stroke, difficulty swallowing, and was receiving palliative care (end of life). On 7/9/24 at 12:35 P.M., a lunchtime observation was conducted in the dining room designated for residents that required staff assistance to eat. CNA 1 was observed feeding Resident A, touching the resident's wheelchair, 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 · F2023-01-27 · tag F0800 — widespreadProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure overall operational systems were established for oversight of the Food and Nutrition Services department. This failure to ensure an effective system for day-to-day dietary operations oversight may have placed 49 residents at risk for foodborne illness or further compromised their nutrition and health status due to unsafe, unsanitary, and improper dietetic service practices. Cross reference F802, F804, and F812 Findings: During the facility's recertification survey from 1/24/23-1/27/23, multiple deficient practices were identified in the Food and Nutrition Services Department's main and satellite kitchens, which included storage of expired, unlabeled, or undated foods; unsanitary kitchen food storage equipment; untrained staff in therapeutic diet food preparation; sanitary equipment cleaning; and no hairnet use with staff entry into the satellite kitchen. Findings: Storage of Expired, Unlabeled, and Undated Foods During the initial tour of the main kitchen on 1/24/2023 at 8:36 A.M. with 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 · Fcited before2023-01-27 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — widespreadProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen staff obtained sufficient training to perform and competently when: 1. A Dishwasher (DSW) did not follow the proper procedure to clean dishes in the dish machine and was unable to demonstrate the correct process to test the dish machine sanitizer solution. 2. A DSW did not follow the manufacturer's guidelines for cleaning the Ice Machine. 3. Kitchen staff and non-kitchen staff did not follow food safety and sanitation practices by not wearing hair nets or performing hand hygiene when entering the satellite kitchen. 4. A DSW did not follow did not perform proper hand hygiene or change gloves after disposing the kitchen garbage and re-entering the kitchen. 5. Two Cooks and a Diet Aide were not trained on pureed diet preparation. These failures placed all residents at risk for developing a food-borne illness, and the potential for a choking hazard or altered nutrient intake for nine residents on pureed diets. Cross reference F800, F804, F812 Findings: 1. During a kitchen observation 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 · Fcited before2023-01-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 ensure food safety and sanitation practices were maintained in the kitchen according to standards of practice and facility policy when: 1. Expired ground meat was in the main kitchen PARVE (Jewish term that refers to neutral foods that may be eaten with milk and dairy or meats) walk-in refrigerator. 2. A dirty filter with gray lint, dust and black scum was inside the PARVE walk-in refrigerator's that contained uncovered pans of vegetables and meat. 3. The dish machine sanitizer solution was outside of the correct chemical range and tested at 200 ppm (parts per million); and the Dishwasher (DSW) could not correctly test the sanitizer. 4. The Ice Machine was not properly maintained and cleaned per manufacturer guidelines. 5. [NAME] and flour were in large bulk unlabeled and dated in plastic bin containers. 6. A large plastic bin with 24 mighty shakes were found without the correct label and date in the satellite kitchen's reach-in refrigerator. 7. A case of vegetable egg rolls and case of rainbow sherbet ice…
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 before2023-01-27 · 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 consistently document a POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) form signed by the family, physician's order, and the computer indicator for code status (Full resuscitation vs Do Not Resuscitate-DNR), for one of three residents (Resident 33), reviewed for Advanced Directives. As a result, there was the potential for Resident 33's wishes to not be honored based on staff confusion of what the resident's wishes were. Findings: Resident 33 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included pneumonitis (inflammation of the lungs), due to inhalation of food, per the facility's Resident Face Sheet. On 1/24/23, Resident 33's clinical record was reviewed: According to the POLST form, signed by Resident 33's Responsible Party (RP-a person assigned by the resident to make medical and financial decisions on the resident's behalf), dated 12/1/22. The POLST, section A was checked for .Attempt Resuscitation/CPR. Section A requires…
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 before2023-01-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a physician's order for a pain medication was followed for 1 of 13 sampled residents (247) when the order for tramadol PRN at bedtime for pain was given at random times. The facility also failed to ensure pain medications ware ordered for all levels of pain for 1 of 13 sampled residents (247). As a result, there was the potential to not properly medicate the residents for pain Findings: Resident #247 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included a fractured right hip and surgical repair per the Record of Admission. A care plan for pain was developed on 1/13/23, That included three ordered pain medications: Tramadol, Percocet, and Tylenol. The first approach listed on Resident 247's care plan was to re-administer medications as ordered and evaluate slash record slash report effectiveness and any adverse side effects. An additional approach was to assess past effectiveness and ineffective pain relief measures. There was a…
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 · D2023-01-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 oxygen tubing was changed according to facility policy for two of two sampled Residents (2, 29) reviewed for oxygen use. In addition, an oxygen humidifier was not changed and replaced for Resident 29. These failures had the potential for residents to be exposed for infection and not receive adequate oxygen humidification. Findings: 1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included atelectasis (collapsed lung) and respiratory failure with hypoxia (not enough oxygen) per the facility's Face Sheet. 2. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia per the facility's Face Sheet. On 1/24/23 at 8:57 A.M., Resident 29 was observed laying on her bed wearing an oxygen cannula (tube) connected to an oxygen concentrator. Resident 2 stated, My nose felt a little dry. The oxygen concentrator was set to three liters and connected to a…
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 · D2023-01-27 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 nurses' clinical skills and competencies were maintained on an annual basis. This failure had the potential to affect Resident's quality of care and treatment. Findings: On 1/26/23 a joint interview and record review of nurses' competencies was reviewed with the DSD. The DSD stated when a new Licensed Nurse (LN) was hired, the LN attended an orientation in class and on the nursing unit. The DSD stated LNs went through an annual competency skill and used the form titled, Annual Competency Nurses. The DSD stated that the facility has not been doing the annual competency for about a year. On 1/27/23 at 7:15 A.M., an interview was conducted with LN 23. LN 23 stated she had been working in the facility for a year and was not sure if the facility had been doing an annual competency check. LN 23 stated it was important for the nurses to have an annual competency because it was a good reminder to refresh their skills and to make sure they were doing clinical procedures correct. In addition, LN 23 stated she did not have a…
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 · D2023-01-27 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to secure (lock) one of three treatment carts (South unit cart), reviewed for medication storage. Findings: On 1/25/23 at 10:33 A.M., an observation was conducted in the South unit. The treatment cart was unlocked, and no staff were nearby. The top two drawers contained multiple prescriptions of residents' creams and ointments. On 1/25/23 10:35 A.M. a observation and interview was conducted with LN 16. LN 16 was observed going to the medication cart, which was next to the treatment cart. LN 16 locked the treatment cart when she observed it was unlocked. LN 16 stated she locked the cart because, Someone could get into the cart, that should not be allowed to. On 1/25/23 at 10:45 A.M., an interview was conducted with the DSD. The DSD stated the treatment cart should be locked, whenever it was not in use. The DSD stated if the treatment cart was left unlocked, anyone could have access to prescription medications. On 1/26/23 at 11:12 A.M., an observation was conducted in the South unit. The treatment cart was left…
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 · D2023-01-27 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 the pureed diet was prepared and served in a manner that conserved nutritive value, flavor, and appearance. This deficient practice affected the nutrient content and increased the risk of choking for eight residents on a pureed diet, and one sampled resident (R2) on a liquefied (drinkable) pureed diet. Cross reference F800, F802 Findings: During a kitchen observation and interview on 1/24/23 at 9:21 AM, [NAME] (CK) 2 had already prepared the pureed diet meals, prior to surveyor observation. The pureed diet lunch meal items including pureed vegetables, pureed hummus, pureed sausage, pureed pear, and pureed coleslaw were in individual 1x6-inch metal hotel shot pans inside the steamer warming. CK 2 stated there were eight residents on pureed diets and the lunch tray line service would start at 11:30 A.M. According to the facility's therapeutic menu spreadsheet on Monday, 1/24/23 for lunch, the pureed diets were to receive: 4 oz. pureed vegetables and 4 oz. of pureed hummus HOT, 4 oz. pureed sausage, 4 oz.…
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 before2023-01-27 · 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 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe infection control practices were followed when: 1. A kitchen aide did not disinfect hands between delivery of meals to residents in one of two resident dining rooms (main dining room), reviewed for dining observation task; and 2. A urinary catheter drainage bag was in contact with the floor for one of three residents (Resident 33), reviewed for urinary catheter care. As a result, there was the potential for cross contamination of microorganisms (bacteria, virus, fungus). Findings: 1. On 1/24/23 at 12:03 P.M., an observation was conducted in the main dining room during the first dining observation. Food server 16 (FS 16) was passing out coffee to residents sitting at a table. FS 16 was observed putting his gloved right hand on a resident's wheelchair handle as he leaned into the resident and asked her if wanted a bowl of soup. FS 16 returned to the coffee/soup area without changing his gloves or washing his hands and 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.
“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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BLOSE, BRADLEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2000 |
| MEASER, CARL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/16/2016 |
| GILBERT, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2016 |
| GREGORY, LEONARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2016 |
| HAIMSOHN, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2016 |
| PLATT, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2016 |
| FERRIS, PAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2000 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
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 $1.4M 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 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 555424. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-24, 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.