Glendale Adventist Medical Center DP/SNF
1509 Wilson Ter, Glendale, CA 91206 · For profit - Partnership · 40 certified beds · (818) 409-8000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (18% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.5% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.7% | 23.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.7% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
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.
64.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 1,015 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 33.2% 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 644 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 1.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 99% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 49% 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 | 64.1%CMS range 61.1–67.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.4%CMS range 11.9–14.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 33.2% | 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 | 40.1% | 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 | 16.6% | 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 | 98.5% | 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 | 95.3% | 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 | 94.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.1% | 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 | 0.5% | 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 | 5.4%CMS range 4.0–7.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 40 beds and averages 38.8 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 1 bed 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 6.51 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.63 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.76 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.82 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.64 to 2.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 18% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-15 · 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 observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards and the facility's policy and procedures titled Food Storage for food service safety by ensuring the hospital food was properly labeled and dated with the product name, date product was opened or prepared and use by date by: An open box of Dark Chocolate Cocoa Mix with individually wrapped packets had no open date. 2. An open plastic container with lentils had no label to identify its contents or indicate the use-by date. 3. A multi-rack with metal trays that had food items without label or use-by-dated. 4. A bag of carrots with a large tear on the package had no label and use-by-date. These deficient practices placed the residents at the risk of widespread foodborne illness (infections caused by consuming contaminated food, beverages, or water containing harmful microbes, pathogens, or toxins). Findings: During an initial kitchen observation conducted with the Dietary Director (DD) on 8/13/2025 at 9:18 AM included 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 before2025-08-15 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two sampled residents (Resident 6 and 45) received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI a infection of the urinary tract that includes urethra, ureters, bladder and kidneys resulting when microorganism gets into the urine and travels to the urinary tract) by failing to ensure: 1. Resident 6's suction tubing that connects to Resident 6's Pure Wick System (PWS- an external female catheter use for urine collection for residents that are incontinent [no control] of bladder when urinating) was covered and placed in a plastic bag when disconnected from Resident 6 was not left on top of Resident 6's pillow and the urine collection cannister connected to the tubing was labeled or dated of the last time it was changed. 2. Resident 45's tubing that connects to Resident 45's [NAME] Fit (PF-external male catheter for urine collection for residents that are incontinent of bladder when urinating)…
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 before2025-08-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement facility's policy and procedure to prevent spread of infection for two of two sampled residents at risk or with infection by failing to: 1.Resident 34's nasal cannula (NC-a flexible tube with two prongs that rest in the nostrils to deliver supplemental oxygen) was observed in her room without a plastic bag and a label or date of the last time it was changed. The facility's policy indicated to changed NC every 7 days. 2.Biomedical Technician (BT) did not perform hand hygiene and don (put on) PPE (Protective equipment and clothing such as gown and gloves used to prevent the spread of infectious organisms) before and after entering Resident 44's, who was placed on contact isolation (precautions taken in healthcare settings to prevent the spread of infections). These deficient practices had the potential to transmit infection (spread form one person to person or from contaminated surface or object) and result in widespread of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 sampled patient (Resident 1) received Keppra (seizure [uncontrolled shaking, loss of body movement, function, and consciousness] medication), when Resident 1 was placed on NPO (nothing by mouth) by the physician and there was no communication between staff and physician regarding Resident 1's alternatives to receiving the medication.This deficient practice may have contributed to Resident 1 having a seizure the following morning, when Resident 1 did not receive Keppra for over 12 hours.Findings:During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/27/2025, the record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility with a history of glioblastoma (brain tumor with symptoms such as headaches, seizure, mood changes, and speech difficulty).During a review of Resident 1's Gastroenterology (physician who specializes in stomach and intestine conditions) Consultation, dated 7/21/2025, the record indicated Resident 1 had gastrointestinal (GI, stomach) bleeding. The record indicated a plan for Resident 1 to…
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 · E2024-08-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. A review of Resident 153's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life) and sepsis (a life-threatening medical emergency that occurs when the body's immune system has an extreme response to an infection). A review of Resident 153's Orders dated 8/14/24, Orders indicated Resident 153 was ordered a Dysphagia Diet (a diet for people who have difficulty swallowing). During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/17/24 at 8:48 AM with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 was observed standing while assisting Resident 153 to eat. LVN 1 stated, I'm not sure if we have to be sitting at the same level of the resident when we are helping to feed residents. If the nursing assistants are busy assisting residents with feeding and another resident that requires assistance with feeding, we help them feed 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 · Ecited before2024-08-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards and the facility ' s policy and procedure for food service safety by ensuring the hospital food were properly labeled and dated with the product name, date product was opened or prepared and use by date. The facility failed to: 1. Label and put an expiration date on a tub of cookies in the freezer. 2. [NAME] the jar of slaw with open date or use by date. 3. Label food in cart trays 4. Dispose of expired veggies in cart 5. Dispose of dirty cans of soda in the refrigerator 6. Dispose of bag of cabbage that had two expiration date labels. 7. Label and date meat package 8. Store ice machine scoop not on the ice. As a result of these deficient practices the residents had the potential to result in a widespread food-borne illnesses (an infection caused by consuming contaminated food, beverages and water than can happen during food processing, production, 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 · Dcited before2024-08-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for one of eight sampled residents (Resident 149) who was at risk for developing blood clot by failing to apply sequential compression device (SCD- a device use on the legs to promote blood circulation and prevent blood clot to develop) as ordered by the physician. This deficient practice had the potential to cause a deep vein thrombosis (DVT; blood clot that forms in a deep vein, often in the legs, from lack of blood circulation and potentially cause pulmonary embolism (PE is when a blood clot breaks off from inside a vein and travels to the lungs and causes respiratory distress), heart attach (heart stop functioning) and stroke (interruption of blood flow to the brain) Findings: During a review of Resident 149's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 Diabetes (a disease that results in blood sugar being too high), morbid…
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 before2024-08-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases (one that is spread from one person to another through contact with blood and bodily fluids, or breathing in an airborne virus) for one of one sampled residents (Resident 8) by failing to label Resident 8's peripheral intravenous line (IV, a thin flexible tube was inserted through the skin into a small vein in the periphery to deliver fluid and medications) to indicate the date the IV was inserted. As a result of this deficient practice had the potential for the IV not to be changed timely and could result in phlebitis (inflammation/swelling of the vein) or develop infection in the peripheral IV site that could enter the blood stream and result in severe infection. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 8's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included obesity…
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 · E2023-08-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 4. A review of Resident 235's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 8/1/2023. During a review of Resident 235's H&P, dated 8/2/2023, indicated the resident was confused and bedridden (confined to bed by sickness or old age), with diagnosis that included dementia and depression. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/5/2023 at 1:47 pm, Resident 235 was lying in bed. Resident 235's Family 1 (FAM 1) stated, Resident 235 did not want to eat and would get angry when assisted to be fed. FAM 1 stated Resident 235 would usually eat homemade soup but refused to eat now. During a concurrent record review of Resident 235's Physician Orders and interview with MDSN 1 on 8/6/2023 at 10:17 am indicated, the physician ordered Resident 235 to receive Sertraline. The physician order for Resident 235 did not specify the indication for use, and the behavior and/or side effects to be monitored for the use of Sertraline. In an interview the MDSN 1 stated, there was no documented evidence…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases (one that is spread from one person to another through contact with blood and bodily fluids, or breathing in an airborne virus) for five of 5 sampled residents ( Residents 136, 17, 21, 5 and 85) by failing to: 1. For Resident 136, there was no posting of a Contact Isolation (precautions to prevent transmission of infectious agents, which are spread by direct contact with the patient or the patient's environment) sign outside of resident room to remind staff and visitors to wear proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment used to protective clothing, helmets, gloves, face shields, goggles, face masks and/or respirators or other equipment designed to protect the wearer from injury or the spread of infection or illness) before entering the resident's room. 2. For Resident # 17, the peripheral IV line (a thin, flexible…
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 · D2023-08-06 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of need by ensuring the call light was within reach as indicated on the facility's policy and procedure, titled Answering of Call Lights and resident's Care Plan for one of one sampled resident (Resident 135) who was at risk for fall. This deficient practice had the potential for the resident not to receive or received delayed care to meet the necessary care and services that could result in fall and accident. Findings: During a review of Resident 135's admission Record indicated, the facility admitted Resident 135 on 7/29/2023. During a review of Resident 135's History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/30/2023, the record indicated, Resident 135's was alert, awake and oriented with diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure), Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA, death of some brain cells due to lack of oxygen when the blood flow to the brain is impaired) and congestive heart failure (CHF, heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscle) and left upper…
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 · D2023-08-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a resident specific plan of care to prevent development and/or worsening Stage 2 pressure ulcer (a skin injury or ulcer resulting in partial-thickness skin loss with exposed open skin due to prolonged pressure or being in one position for prolong period) in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure for one of two sampled residents (Resident 89). Resident 89's plan of care did not indicate interventions on how often the resident will be repositioned and turned while in bed, how to keep resident clean and dry. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 89 not to receive the necessary care and services to prevent the worsening of pressure ulcer that could result in pain, discomfort, and wound infection. Cross reference to F686. Findings: A review of Resident 89's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 6/29/2023. During a review of Resident 89's of H&P assessment, dated 6/26/2023,…
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 · D2023-08-06 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with facility's policy and procedure to prevent the development or worsening of pressure ulcer/injury (a skin injury due to friction or shear and for prolonged pressure by being in one position of a long period of time) for two of four residents (Resident 86 and 89) by failing to: 1. Ensure Resident 86 who was using a Low Air Loss Mattress (LAL - mattress composed of multiple inflatable air tubes that alternately inflate and deflate designed to prevent and treat pressure ulcers) was set in a correct setting based on the manufacturer's recommendation. 2. Ensure Resident 89 who had a Stage 2 pressure ulcer (Partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis, presenting as a shallow open ulcer.) was turned and repositioned, not left in supine (lying in on the back) for a long period while in bed. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 86 to develop pressure ulcers, and for Resident 89 to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-06 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess and monitor the presence of white sediments (visible particles in the urine that may contain red or white blood cells, casts, bacteria, fungi, parasites in the urine that could indicate infection or dehydration [fluid deficit]) in the urine for one of 2 sampled residents (Resident 21) with indwelling catheter (a tube inserted in the bladder to drain urine into a drainage bag), as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure, titled Care of Indwelling Catheter and the resident's Care Plan. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 21 to receive no care or delayed care and treatment for urinary tract infection (UTI, condition in which bacteria invade and grow in any part the urinary system which includes the kidneys, bladder, ureters [tube that carries urine from the kidney to the urinary bladder], and/or dehydration (condition that occurs when the loss of body fluids, mostly water, exceeds the amount that is taken in). Findings: During a review of Resident 21's admission Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ADVENTIST HEALTH — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 06/16/1980 |
| BONNER, ROBERT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/25/2021 |
| ISSAI, ALICE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/02/2018 |
| TETZ, WARREN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/14/1999 |
| BANKS, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/05/2017 |
| CHERRY, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/05/2017 |
| DAVIS, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/05/2017 |
| FREEDMAN, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/26/2016 |
| GABRIEL, MELODY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2015 |
| GRAHAM, RICARDO | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/17/2007 |
| HEINRICH, KERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/16/2014 |
| INNOCENT, LARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/19/2011 |
| PEDERSEN, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/16/2017 |
| REINER, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/31/2014 |
| REINER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/16/2017 |
| RIPPEY, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/14/1998 |
| SALAZAR, VELINO | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/15/2015 |
| WING, BILLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/31/2014 |
| JOBE, MEREDITH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/31/2014 |
| WAGNER, JACK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/31/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 555911. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-15, 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.