Gilroy Healthcare Center
8170 Murray Avenue, Gilroy, CA 95020 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 134 certified beds · (408) 842-9311 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (36) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $69,735 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-17)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 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 fell from 5 to 2 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 | 14.0% | 10.2% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.5% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.7% | 7.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.5% | 1.6% | 3.3% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.7% | 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 | 5.5% | 4.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.2% | 10.2% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.1% | 12.0% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.5% | 23.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.6% | 11.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.27 | 2.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.25 | 1.57 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
51.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 291 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.9% 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 90 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 51.9%CMS range 45.3–59.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.2%CMS range 9.0–16.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 68.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 58.9% | 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 | 63.3% | 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 | 98.1% | 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 | 92.3% | 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 | 92.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 9.8%CMS range 6.8–13.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.26 | 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 134 beds and averages 133.8 residents a day — about 100% occupied, or roughly 0 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.77 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.52 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.60 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.10 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
36 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-06-23 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure 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 67 out of 67 residents (residents who received Levaquin [a brand name for levofloxacin, a type of antibiotic known as fluoroquinolone used to treat bacterial infections] and Metformin [a medication that helps control the amount of glucose (sugar) in the blood]) (Residents 392, 389, 122, 130, 127, 124, 383, 393, 132, 83, 126, 391, 125, 129, 388, 68, 7, 10, 82, 52, 41, 394, 123, 390, 70, 384, 21, 387, 133, 93, 74, 385, 326, 381, 103, 47, 377, 222, 89, 49, 46, 106, 131, 323, 16, 22, 33, 63, 50, 23, 386, 128, 111, 322, 4, 71, 80, 99, 15, 382, 2, 64, 26, 17, 380, 90, and 65) were free from unnecessary medications when there was inadequate monitoring and systemic failure in management of residents on medications with black box warning (BBW, is the strongest warning the Food and Drug Administration [FDA-it is a federal agency responsible for protecting and promoting public health by regulating and supervising food safety, medications, medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure to provide care and services to meet professional standards for one of three sampled resident (Resident 1) when license nursing staff failed to follow medical doctor's (MD, a licensed healthcare professional who practices medicine to diagnose, treat, and prevent illnesses, injuries, and other medical conditions for residents) order to notify the MD when Resident 1's blood glucose (BG, sugar level in blood) level were more than 300 (mg/dl, milligrams per deciliter, standard unit of measuring BG) for 14 times across nine days in two months.These failures had the potential to affect plan of care, medical condition and well-being for Resident 1. Findings:Review of resident 1's face sheet (FS, document that gives resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 1 was admitted to facility on 9/29/2025.Review of Resident 1's FS also indicated Resident 1's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 (a chronic medical condition of body not able to maintain normal blood sugar levels).Review of Resident 1's order summary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-24 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was free from unnecessary medication. Resident 1 received insulin (a man- made medication used to treat high blood glucose [BG, sugar in blood] level) without documented evidence of adequate monitoring for signs and symptoms (s/s) of hypoglycemia (a medical condition with blood glucose drops to dangerous low levels) and hyperglycemia (a medical condition with high blood glucose level) on routine basis for Resident 1. These failures had the potential to affect health condition, well-being and necessary use of insulin for Resident 1. Findings:Review of resident 1's face sheet (FS, document that gives resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 1 was admitted to facility on 9/29/2025.Review of Resident 1's FS also indicated Resident 1's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 (DM2, a chronic medical condition of body not able to maintain normal blood sugar levels).Review of Resident 1's order summary dated 9/29/2025 indicated an order for insulin aspart (a fast…
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 before2026-06-24 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) for prevention of pressure injuries (localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue when exposed to prolonged or intense pressure) for one of three sampled resident (Resident 1) when there was no documented evidence indicated for Resident 1's braden assessment (a standardized, evidence-based clinical tool used by healthcare professionals to predict a resident's risk of developing pressure injuries) completed upon admission to the facility on 9/29/2025.This failure had the potential to affect pressure injury management for Resident 1. Findings:Review of resident 1's face sheet (FS, document that gives resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 1 was admitted to facility on 9/29/2025.Review of Resident 1's FS also indicated Resident 1's diagnoses included fibromyalgia (a medical condition characterized by widespread body pain, fatigue, sleep problems and cognitive distress),…
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 before2025-12-03 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure to explain in a form and manner that resident was able to understand before signed an arbitration agreement (a contract that requires to resolve future disputes with facility through a private arbitration process, waive the right to sue the facility for issues) for one of three sampled resident (Resident 2). This failure had the potential to compromise the right to be fully informed to make health care choices, decisions, and well-being for Resident 2.Findings:During an interview with Resident 2 in her room [ROOM NUMBER]/8/2025 at 11:00 a.m., Resident 2 stated certified nursing assistant A (CNA A) came to her room [ROOM NUMBER] weeks ago, asked her to sign for a form on computer for the new company took over this facility. Resident 2 [NAME] CNA A to explain about the form what she needed to sign. Resident 2 stated CNA A only told her, She cannot sue facility, and CNA A rushed Resident 2 to sign without explained further. Resident 2 also stated…
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 before2025-12-03 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure to code minimum data set (MDS: an assessment tool) assessment accurately for range of motion (ROM: joint flexibility/movement either independently or with assistance) with contractures (a condition affecting joint stiffness or tightness causes severe limitations with joint movements) for one of 3 sampled resident (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to affect inappropriate care and treatment for contractures for Resident 1.Findings:During an observation on 10/8/2025 at 12:09 p.m., noted right hand all fingers curled inside, left wrist and both ankles' contractures for Resident 1. During an interview with Resident 1 on 10/8/2025 at 12:15 pm., Resident 1 stated unable to open fingers for right hand, cannot hold objects with left hand due to joint restrictions for both hands and no movements in both legs.Review of Resident 1's face sheet (FS: a document that gives a resident's information at a quick glance) indicated 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 · E2025-06-23 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their policy and procedure (P&P) for completion of physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST: a document that specifies the medical treatments the resident wants to receive during serious illness) form for six of eight sampled residents (Resident 34, 42, 57, 83, 104 and 106). This failure could lead to the delivery of unnecessary or inappropriate medical services against sampled residents' goals and wishes. Findings: Review of Resident 34's face sheet (FS: a document that gives a resident's information at a quick [NAME]) indicated Resident 34 was admitted to facility on 1/16/2019. Review of Resident 34's POLST form date prepared on 4/12/2024 indicated section for advance directive (AD: a written instruction, such as a living will or durable power of attorney [a document that authorizes a person to act on behalf of resident] for healthcare when the individual is incapacitated) not completed, left blank. Review of Resident 42's FS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 develop and implement comprehensive care plans that included target symptoms, measurable objectives, and interventions for nine out of 26 sampled residents (Resident 5, Resident 96, Resident 109, Resident 10, Resident 106, Resident 111, Resident 89, Resident 91, and Resident 52) when: 1. Resident 5 had no care plan developed related to nebulization treatment (using a machine called a nebulizer to convert liquid medicine into a fine mist that can be inhaled into the lungs); 2. Resident 96 had no care plan developed for diagnosis of epilepsy (an abnormal activity in the brain causing uncontrollable jerking movements of the arms and legs, and loss of consciousness); 3. Resident 109 had no care plans developed for the use of craniotomy helmet (a protective medical device worn by patients who have undergone a craniotomy [a surgical procedure that involves cutting into the skull to access the brain] or craniectomy [a surgical procedure where 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 · Ecited before2025-06-23 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a medication error rate of 18.18% when 6 medication errors occurred out of 33 opportunities during the medication administration for three out of eight residents (Resident 52, 106, and 112). For Resident 106, the nursing staff did not prime (the process of removing air from the insulin pen and needle before each injection) the insulin (medication to lower blood sugar) pen and needle before giving insulin. Resident 112 received fluticasone nasal spray (a medication for seasonal allergies) not as ordered. Resident 52 received 4 medications that were combined, crushed, administered together via the gastrostomy tube (G-tube, a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition and medications directly to the stomach), a practice contrary to the facility's policy and procedures (P&P). The failures resulted in a medication not given as ordered; potential for too low or high dose of insulin that could lead to adverse effects; and potential for physical and chemical incompatibilities (undesirable chemical or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-23 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure 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 and interview the facility failed to ensure food served was palatable and attractive. This failure had the potential to affect the amount of food residents consume, which could decrease their food intake and lead to poor nutrition and health outcomes. Findings: During an interview on 6/9/25 at 9:34 a.m. with Resident 17, Resident 17 stated that Breakfast this morning was terrible, no taste, and bland. She also stated the food overall in the facility was terrible most of the days. During an interview on 6/9/25 at 10:10 a.m. with Resident 42, Resident 42 stated The breakfast is not exciting, same food every day, no change, eggs every day. Resident 42 also stated that the meals had no flavor and no taste and that she does not like the food. During an interview on 6/9/25 at 10:15 a.m. with Resident 98, Resident 98 stated Breakfast is just OK, nothing exciting. She stated she is getting eggs with no taste and the edges are too dry. During an interview on 6/9/25 at 11:09 a.m. with Resident 321, Resident 321 stated the food is terrible, no taste, and the same food…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food safety when pans used for food preparation and food service were stacked and stored wet. This failure had the potential to cause food contamination and food-borne illness to 117 of 118 residents who received their food from the kitchen. Findings: During an initial kitchen tour on 6/9/25 at 9:30 a.m., accompanied by the dietary manager (DM), there were 11 metal pans of various sizes, observed to be stored under the steam table. The pans were stacked upside down inside of one another and were wet inside and outside of the pan's surfaces. The DM confirmed the pans were wet and he stated they should have been air dried before being stacked and stored. According to the 2022 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, Section 4-901.11 Equipment and Utensils, Air-Drying Required, After cleaning and sanitizing, equipment and utensils: shall be air-dried . According to the FDA Food Code 2022 4-903 Storing,…
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 25 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-06-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 5. On [DATE] at 9:19 a.m., Licensed Vocation Nurse (LVN) C was observed removing a glucometer from the medication cart. On [DATE] at 9:22 a.m., at Resident 5's bedside, LVN C was observed pricking the resident's left middle finger to get a blood sample for the blood sugar reading. On [DATE] at 9:28 a.m., LVN C was observed removing a pre-saturated chlorox disinfectant wipe and wrapping it around the glucometer without wipping it down first. Then she placed it on top of the medication cart. On [DATE] at 9:38 a.m., LVN C used the same glucometer and entered Resident 106's room to obtain his blood sugar reading. She stated she could not get a reading because the battery in the glucometer died. Two minutes later, on [DATE] at 9:40 a.m., LVN C returned to the medication cart, and again, used the chlorox disinfectant wipe to wrap around the glucometer without cleaning it first with the wipe. On [DATE] at 9:42 a.m., LVN C returned to Resident 106's room with another glucometer and was able to obtain a blood sugar…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-23 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their Antibiotic Stewardship Program when six of 18 residents (Residents 89, 68, 108, 23, 47, and 373) who received antibiotics (medications that kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria) did not meet the Loeb's criteria [a set of minimum clinical guidelines used in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to help healthcare providers decide when to initiate antibiotic treatment for suspected infections in residents]. These failures had the potential to increase the prevalence of multi-drug resistance organism (MDRO - these are microorganisms, mostly bacteria, that have become resistant to multiple types of antibiotics) or bacteria. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 89's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 89 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses includes Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and mental functions) and urinary tract infection (UTI, an infection that can occur in any part of the urinary system, including the kidneys,…
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 before2025-06-23 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 needs were accommodated for three of 26 sampled residents (Residents 100, 96, and 52) when: 1. Resident 100 and Resident 96's call light button (a red or white button used to call for assistance) were not within their reach for use; and 2. Resident 52 did not receive the appropriate call system (a device used to communicate a need for help) based on his needs. These failures had the potential for a delayed response and not meeting Resident 100, Resident 96 and Resident 52's needs. Findings: 1a. Review of Resident 100's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated 6/13/2025, indicated Resident 100 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including wedge compression fracture (a type of spinal fracture where one or more vertebrae [back bones] collapse due to pressure, often resulting in a wedge shape) of first lumbar vertebrae (the five bones that make up the lower part of the spine, situated between the thoracic vertebrae and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-23 · tag F0577 — isolatedAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the residents were made aware of the location of the latest facility's State inspection result (Statement of Deficiencies and Statement of Isolated Deficiencies generated by the most recent standard survey and any subsequent extended surveys, and any deficiencies resulting from any subsequent complaint investigations) and available to read for six out of seven residents (Residents 34, 7, 55, 88, 68, and 71). This failure had the potential to result in residents being uninformed. Findings: During an interview in the Resident Council (a group of people living in a shared space [like a nursing home, public housing, or assisted living facility] who organize to represent the interests of all residents) meeting on 6/10/2025 at 9:56 a.m., when asked if the State inspection results were available to read without asking, Residents 34, 7, 55, 88, 68, and 71 stated they were not aware of where to find the survey results. They further stated no one from the facility told them where to find it. During an…
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 · D2025-06-23 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility's document review, the facility failed to maintain resident's rights to privacy and confidentiality to three of 26 sampled residents (Resident 371, Resident 372, and Resident 373) when: 1. Resident 371's Foley catheter drainage bag, (a device inserted into the bladder [organ that collects urine] to drain urine, made of a semi-flexible plastic tube, one end inserted into the bladder and the other end attached to a bag that collects urine) drain bag was left uncovered; and 2. Resident 372 and Resident 373's personal information and care instructions were posted in the room visible to roommate and visitors. These failures had the potential to compromise resident's rights and dignity. Findings: 1. During an observation on 6/9/25 at 2:08 p.m., in Resident 371's room, Resident 371 was sharing a room with another resident. Resident 371's bed was towards the entrance door and privacy curtains were open. Resident 371's foley catheter drainage bag with yellow colored urine about 150 ml (milliliter) was left uncovered with privacy bag that can be…
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 · D2025-06-23 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 14 and 21) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) when: 1. Resident 21 received a high dose of quetiapine (generic: Seroquel: an antipsychotic medication, used to regulate the functioning of brain circuits that control thinking, mood, and perception) without documented necessity for its use and without demonstration of how the behavioral symptoms caused harm to the resident/others or causing significant distress to the resident; 2. Resident 14 received Seroquel and Fluoxetine (an anti-depressant) with no documented non-drug interventions for both medication; 3. Resident 83 received pro re nata (PRN: as needed or as the situation arises) psychotropic medication with no stop date. These failures resulted in inadequate indication and unnecessary medications which had the potential for increased risks…
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 before2025-06-23 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) for two residents (83 and 119) when: 1. For Resident 119, the facility failed to accurately complete the discharge status; 2. For Resident 83, the facility did not code the use of injectable medication and incorrectly coded Resident 83's falls. Failure to accurately assess the residents had the potential to result in inadequate or inappropriate care planning and interventions. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 119's physician order, dated 3/18/25, indicated Discharge to home with medications on 3/18/25. Home Health Services for PT (Physical Therapy) OT (Occupational Therapy) and nursing services. Review of Resident 119's discharge MDS, dated [DATE], indicated she was discharged to the acute hospital. During an interview and concurrent record review with the Minimum Data Set Manager (MDSM) on 6/11/25 at 9:13 a.m., the MDSM confirmed Resident 119 was discharged to her home on 3/18/25. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-23 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure to provide necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new pressure injuries/ulcers (injury to skin from prolonged pressure on the skin) from developing for one of four sampled resident (Resident 57) when: 1. No dressing on right outer ankle pressure injury for Resident 57; 2. No prevalon (a medical device designed to prevent and treat heel pressure injury/ulcer) heel protector boot on to right foot for Resident 57. Above failures had the potential for delayed pressure ulcer healing and developing new pressure injuries for Resident 57. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview with certified nursing assistant P (CNA P) on 6/10/2025 at 9:26 a.m., CNA P also observed Resident 57's right foot and confirmed right outer ankle open area with no dressing or prevalon boot were not on while Resident 57 was in bed with bare feet. CNA P confirmed prevalon boot was left on nightstand next to Resident 57's bed.…
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 before2025-06-23 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications (those with a high abuse potential) were fully accounted when controlled medication use audit for three out of seven sampled residents (Residents 53, 106, and 109) did not reconcile. The residents' medications were signed out of the Controlled Drugs Records (CDR, inventory record of controlled drugs) but not documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR, record of medications administered to a resident) to indicate they were administered to the residents. The failure resulted in inaccurate accountability and had the potential for abuse and diversion (unlawful distribution or use) of controlled medications. Findings: During the survey, the CDRs for seven random residents receiving as-needed (PRN) controlled medications were selected for review. On 6/10/25 at 1:41 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated any time a PRN controlled medication was requested from the resident,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-23 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported irregularities during the medication regimen review (MRR) for one out of 26 sampled residents (Resident 373) when Resident 373 had two similar orders for Dilaudid (brand name for hydromorphone, a potent opioid medication used to treat moderate to severe pain).This deficient practice had the potential for excessive dose/adverse effects for Resident 373. Finding: Review of Resident 373's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 373 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (a condition which affects the way the body processes blood sugar) without complications. During a review of Resident 373's physician order, dated 5/26/25 indicated an order for Dilaudid oral tablet 2 mg (milligram, unit of measurement) give 4 tablet by mouth every 3 hours as needed for pain. During a review of Resident 373's physician order, dated 5/26/25 indicated an order for hydromorphone [brand name for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-20 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP, a person designated to make decisions on behalf of a resident) of resident's change of condition for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to affect the ability of the RP to participate in the planning of resident's care and treatment plans. Findings: Review of Resident 1's admission record, indicated Resident 1 was readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure (a serious condition that makes it difficult to breathe), unspecified whether with hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in body tissues) or hypercapnia (when high levels of waste products such as carbon dioxide remain in the blood), pleural effusion (a buildup of fluid between the layers of tissue that line the lungs and chest cavity), disorders of diaphragm (the muscle that separates the chest cavity from the abdomen) and unspecified diastolic heart failure (a heart condition that can lead to decreased blood flow and other complications). The record also 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-01 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was accurately completed upon admission for 1 (Resident #36) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for PASARRs. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Resident Assessment- Coordination with PASARR Program, revised in 10/31/2023, revealed, This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receives care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. A review of Resident #36's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/16/2021. A review of Resident #36's hospital Discharge Referral, with a hospital admission date of 03/11/2021, revealed the resident had a diagnosis of unspecified psychosis with an onset date of 08/08/2019. A review of Resident #36's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Level I Screening, dated…
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 · D2023-10-27 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when the facility failed to report an injury of unknown source with serious bodily injury (injury requiring medical intervention such as surgery) to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) within 2 hours after the facility known about the injury of Resident 1. This failure had the potential for Resident 1's injury of unknown source to not be investigated thoroughly and be at risk for continued injury. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's Facility admission Record, undated, admission Record indicated, Resident 1 had diagnoses of Metabolic Encephalopathy (disorder that affects brain function), Unspecified Dementia (mild memory disturbance due to known physiological condition), Psychotic Disturbance (Psychotic disorders that affect brain function by altering thoughts, beliefs or perceptions), Muscle Weakness, and Personal History of Other Mental and Behavioral Disorders. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set Section C…
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 before2021-04-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 4/19/21 at 4:25 p.m., LN H was not wearing his facemask while in the nursing station with another staff. When asked if he needed to wear his facemask, he stated he could not answer the surveyor. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 4/19/21 at 4:43 p.m., she stated staff were expected to wear a face mask while in the facility. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/long-term-care.html, Health care provider (HCP) should wear well-fitting source control (e.g facemasks or respirators) at all times while they are in the healthcare facility. 3. During an observation 4/20/21 at 8:54 a.m., LN F wore gloves while preparing medications. LN F went to room (rm) X to talk with a resident without taking off her gloves. At 8:57 a.m., LN F came out from rm X and removed her gloves. During an interview on 4/20/21 at 9:00 a.m., with LN F, she confirmed the above observation and stated she did change her gloves in rm X. LN F further stated she should have…
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 · E2021-04-23 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 State Long Term Care Ombudsman (Ombudsman, an advocate for residents in the nursing homes) was notified in writing in a timely manner for 16 out of 16 discharged residents (Residents 133, 130, 135, 128, 175, 136, 176,138, 65, 132, 125, 127, 126 and 131). This failure had the potential of not providing the resident and/or their responsible party (RP, a person who is accountable in making decision in behalf of the resident) with an access to an advocate who could inform them of their rights. Findings: Review of the facility's discharges/transfer out form for March 2021 indicated the following: Resident 133 was discharged home on 3/20/21. Resident 130 was discharged home on 3/11/21. Resident 135 was discharged home on 3/24/21. Resident 128 was discharged home on 3/11/21. Resident 175 was discharged home on 3/4/21. Resident 136 was discharged home on 3/27/21. Resident 176 was discharged home on 3/6/21. Resident 65 was discharged home on 3/2/21. Resident 132 was discharged home on 3/19/21. Resident 125 was discharged…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-04-23 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide routine and accurate administerstration of medications for one of 23 sampled residents (Resident 10), and accurate accountability of controlled substance (CS, drugs with high potential for abuse or addiction) medications for three of four random record reviews (Residents 80, 112, and 229), when: 1. Resident 10, who had recent eye surgery, did not routinely receive two of her eye medications as ordered on 4/19 and 4/20/21. This had the potential for delay in treatment for the resident; 2. The nursing staff did not document medication administration and did not give routine medications to Resident 10 in a timely manner for two days in April 2021; and, 3. CS medications were signed out from the Controlled Drug Record (CDR, an inventory sheet) but not documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) to indicate they were given to Residents 80, 112, and 229. This failure had the potential for CS drug abuse or diversion. Findings: 1. On 4/19/21, a review of Resident 10's clinical 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-04-23 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's consultant pharmacist (CP) failed to identify and make recommendations to the facility regarding drug storage concerns and irregularities related to the residents' drug regimen for four of 23 sampled residents (Residents 32, 47, 80, and 117). The failures resulted in inadequately monitored medications, which could lead to unsafe and ineffective medications for residents, and unnecessary medications for the residents, which had the potential to place them at risk for harm or adverse consequences. Findings: 1. During an inspection of the Medication Room in Station 3/4 conducted with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 4/19/21 at 10:50 a.m., an opened Novolin NPH (long acting insulin to treat high blood sugar) vial for Resident 28 was identified. Its label indicated it was opened on 12/1/20, and to discard after 1/1/21. An inspection of Medication Cart #4 on 4/19/21 at 3:36 p.m. with licensed nurse (LN) D and LN E identified 3 of 3 Xalatan (latanoprost, to treat high pressure inside the eye due to glaucoma) eye…
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 · E2021-04-23 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure six of 23 sampled residents (Residents 9, 32, 47, 70, 80, and 117) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) when: 1. Resident 9 received five doses of as-needed lorazepam (a controlled medication to treat agitation and anxiety) when the nursing staff documented no behaviors observed, and there was no documented evidence the resident exhibited behaviors before receiving the lorazepam doses; 2. Resident 32 received Seroquel (an antipsychotic medications) with inadequate monitoring when there was no Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS; a rating scale designed to measure involuntary movements known as tardive dyskinesia, a disorder that sometimes develops as a side effect of long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications) assessment conducted since the start of Seroquel; 3. Resident 47 received divalproex sodium (Depakoke; a medication that can treat certain seizure disorders and mental/mood conditions)…
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 · E2021-04-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 store and label medications in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the facility policy and procedures when: 1. One vial of insulin (medication to treat high blood sugar) and one vial of flu vaccine were found in active stock past their discard date; and 4 multi-dose vials (medication, usually in liquid, intended for more than one dose of medication), one oral inhaler, and 3 Xalatan (or lanatoprost, to treat high pressure inside the eye due to glaucoma) eye solution bottles were opened without an open date. Two of the Xalatan eye solutions for 2 residents were being used past the discard date. 2. A Lantus (long-acting insulin) vial was identified without patient-specific label; 3. The nursing staff had been monitoring the temperature in one of two medication refrigerators (Ref #1) once daily, a practice inconsistent with the facility's policy and procedures; and 4. Medication refrigerator temperature was not monitored on a daily basis for Ref #1. The deficient practices had a potential for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-04-23 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to respond to residents' call lights in a timely manner for three of 23 sampled residents (Residents 49, 62, and 70), when: 1. Resident 62 waited 25 minutes in the bathroom to get transfer assistance from wheelchair to toilet to urinate. 2. Resident 70 waited ten minutes for her to be turned and repositioned in bed, and 3. Resident 49 waited ten minutes to get a drink. This failure resulted in the delayed response to residents' needs and could potentially cause resident emotional distress. Findings: 1. During an observation on 04/20/21 at 3:25 p.m., Resident 62 was in the bathroom and her call light was on. She stated she needed help to transfer from the wheelchair to toilet to urinate. The certified nursing assistant (CNA) came in the bathroom at 3:50 pm. Resident 62 waited for 25 minutes to get help. 2. During an observation on 04/20/21 at 3:40 p.m., Resident 70's call light was on and was answered at 3:50 p.m. Resident 70 waited 10 minutes for her call light to be answered. During an interview with Resident 70 on 4/20/21 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 · D2021-04-23 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 implement their abuse policy for three of three sampled residents (Residents 16,18, and 56) when, 1. Residents 16, 18, and 56 were not protected from physical and verbal abuse by certified nursing assistant M (CNA M) and, 2. Residents' 18 and 56 allegations of abuse were not reported. These failures put the residents at risk for further abuse. Findings: 1. Resident 16 had diagnoses including dementia (memory loss) and altered mental status. Resident 16 was non-verbal and had severe cognitive impairment. During the initial tour on 4/19/21 at 12:53 p.m., Resident 94 (co-resident) stated, Resident 16's hands were slapped by CNA M. During an observation on 4/19/21 at 12:53 p.m., Resident 16's right hand was discolored (dark brown) while no discoloration on his left hand was noted. Review of Resident 16's interdisciplinary team (IDT) notes dated 4/14/21 indicated that Resident 94 (co-resident) had reported that CNA M had slapped Resident 16's hand on several occasions when Resident 16 was not cooperating with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-04-23 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) for two of 23 sampled residents (Residents 27 and 230) when the MDS did not reflect the current status of the residents. This failure had the potential to affect inappropriate care planning and intervention. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 27's situation background assessment and recommendation (SBAR, a form of communication tool for healthcare providers) dated 1/7/31 indicated the resident had a fall. The SBAR did not indicate Resident 27 sustained a major injury. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/21 at 08:26 a.m., with the minimum data set coordinator (MDSC), the MDSC reviewed Resident 27's SBAR dated 1/7/21 and the MDS Quarterly review dated 1/27/21 and confirmed Resident 27 did not sustain a major injury during a fall on 1/7/21. The MDSC acknowledged she coded Resident 27's fall with major injury and confirmed the MDS was coded incorrectly. Review of the Centers…
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 before2021-04-23 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to meet the professional standard of practice for three of 23 sampled residents when: 1. Resident 12's input and output was not measured and documented appropriately; 2. Resident 70 and Resident 117's physician orders for the use of oxygen was not followed. These failures had the potential to affect the residents' health condition and care. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 12's clinical record indicated, he had diagnoses of unspecified calorie malnutrition (an imbalances of a person's intake of nutrients) and urinary infection (UTI, an infections in any part of the urinary system). During an observation on 4/20/21 at 9:30 a.m., Resident 12 had a urinary catheter (a sterile flexible tube that collects urine in the bladder that is connected to a urine bag). Review of Resident 12's medication administration record (MAR) for March 2021 indicated, monitor intake and output every shift for signs and symptoms of dehydration (loss of too much fluid in the body)/fluid volume over load (too…
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 before2021-04-23 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 23 sampled residents (Resident 117) was free from unnecessary medications when the nursing staff did not monitor for signs and symptoms of adverse effects related to the use of blood thinning medications. Resident 117 was receiving Lovenox (generic name enoxaparin, an anti-coagulant, or blood thinning medication) and Plavix (anti-platelet agent to prevent heart attacks or strokes). This had the potential for side effects of these medications (such as bleeding, excessive bruising, etc.) to go undetected or recognized for timely intervention. Findings: On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 117's clinical record indicated he was an elderly resident admitted to the facility with diagnoses including the presence of a pacemaker (a medical device that sends electrical pulses to help your heart beat at a normal rate and rhythm) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT, a blood clot forms in a vein located deep inside your body). A review of the clinical record indicated two physician's orders, as follows: a. Lovenox 100 milligrams…
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 before2021-04-23 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a 7.14% error rate when two medication errors out of 28 opportunities were observed during the medication pass. Resident 10 did not receive an eye medication as scheduled; and the nursing staff administered eye medications not in accordance with the facility's medication administration guideline and accepted professional standards of practice. The failure resulted in medications not given as ordered and as per accepted professional standards of practice, which may negatively affect the resident's health. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation on 04/19/21 at 04:20 p.m., licensed nurse A (LN A) was observed preparing and administering 7 medications, including two eye medications: prednisolone (to treat swelling and inflammation) 1% eye solution and brimonidine (for reduction of pressure in the eye) 0.2% eye solution, to Resident 10. At Resident 10's bedside, on 4/19/21 at 4:31 p.m., LN A administered 1 drop of the prednisolone eye solution to the resident's right eye. She then gave the resident's oral…
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
$69,735 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $69,735 — penalty dated 2025-06-17
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to COVENANT CARE — 12 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 11 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| COVENANT CARE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| CENTRE CAPITAL INVESTORS V, LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| CENTRE COVENANT PURCHASER (B), LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| CENTRE COVENANT PURCHASER (Q), LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| CENTRE COVENANT PURCHASER (S), LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/19/2008 |
| CENTRE V SECONDARY FUND, L.P. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| COVENANT HOLDCO, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| COVENANT SUBCO, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| STATE TREASURER OF MICH CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPL RTMNT SYSTEMS | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/19/2008 |
| STOCKWELL FUND II LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/19/2008 |
| EVANS, MARY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/14/2006 |
| LEVIN, ROBERT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/14/2006 |
| SIMS, CHRISTINE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/14/2006 |
| TOROK, ANDREW | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/17/2008 |
| MIDCAP FUNDING IV TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 02/20/2014 |
| ASHLEY, DAVA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/17/2018 |
| CARNEY, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2013 |
| HASSELL, LANCE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/17/2018 |
| SPARKS, CAROL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/17/2006 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
12 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the California Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 055797. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-23, 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.