Golden Empire
121 Dorsey Drive, Grass Valley, CA 95945 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 148 certified beds · (530) 273-1316 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (30) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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 — 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 3 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 | 11.6% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.7% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.5% | 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 | 0.4% | 1.6% | 3.3% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.3% | 9.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.2% | 13.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.9% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.4% | 10.2% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.1% | 12.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.2% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.7% | 23.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.4% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.72 | 2.25 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.29 | 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.
58.7% 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 241 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 164 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 26% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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 | 58.7%CMS range 53.5–64.2 | 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 | 8.1%CMS range 6.0–10.9 | 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 | 66.5% | 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 | 69.5% | 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 | 78.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 16.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 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 | 5.2% | 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 | 6.8%CMS range 4.5–10.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 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 148 beds and averages 138.8 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 is below 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 3.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.86 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
30 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 protect the resident from abuse for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 was found crying and saying, Get him away from me, as Resident 2 was witnessed by staff inappropriately touching Resident 1 while touching his genitals.This failure has resulted inResident 1 not being free from abuse by Resident 2, andResident 1's right to be free from abuse not being protected.Findings:Review of Resident 1's admission Record, indicated that Resident 1 was admitted [DATE] with diagnosis including cerebral palsy (a group of permanent movement and posture disorders caused by damage to or abnormal development of the brain) and contracture right elbow (shortening or ligaments of muscle around a joint as a result the elbow can't bend or straighten).Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 1/14/26 indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive (memory) impairment.Review of Resident 2's admission…
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 · D2026-02-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported timely and immediately within the required time frame for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) when an allegation of abuse was not reported per federal regulation.This failure of timely reporting had the potential to cause a delayed response by enforcement agencies to ensure residents' safety.Findings:Review of Resident 1's admission Record, indicated that Resident 1 was admitted [DATE] with diagnosis including cerebral palsy (a group of permanent movement and posture disorders caused by damage to or abnormal development of the brain) and contracture right elbow (shortening or ligaments of muscle around a joint as a result the elbow can't bend or straighten).Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated resident assessment tool, dated 1/14/26 indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive (memory) impairment.Review of Resident 2's admission Record, indicated that Resident 2 was admitted on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-06 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
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 annual performance reviews were completed for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) for one of three sampled staff (CNA 1).This failure had the potential for the facility to be unaware of staffing performance concerns for CNA 1, with the potential for all resident care to be negatively affected.During a review of CNA 1's current employee file, employee file indicated, most recent performance review was completed 5/17/2021. File indicated, CNA 1 was hired on 5/1/2018.During an interview on 2/6/26, at 9:22 a.m., with Director of Staff Development (DSD), DSD stated, the most recent performance review we have documented for CNA 1 is dated 5/17/2021. DSD stated, performance reviews are supposed to be done annually for all CNAs. DSD stated, the purpose of the annual performance review is to ensure the staff member is doing their job.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Competency Evaluation dated 2024, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to evaluate each employee to assure…
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 before2025-12-10 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of nursing were provided for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when the facility did not develop care plan interventions, monitor, and notify the physician regarding Resident 1's known history of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the ingredient in cannabis [marijuana] that can alter mood, perception, and reduce pain) substance abuse.This failure had the potential to result in Resident 1's unmet medical needs, delayed treatment, and injury.Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted in summer 2025 with diagnoses which included right knee fracture, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and difficulty walking. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated resident assessment), dated 6/27/25, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status-used to screen and identify cognitive condition) score of 15, which indicated Resident 1 had no memory…
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 · E2025-08-22 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep 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 record review the facility failed to ensure the confidentiality of Identifiable information for a census of 137 residents, when residents' meal tickets with personal information were accessible to view by other residents and visitors.These failures decreased the facility's potential to protect residents' identifiable information.Findings:During an observation on 8/19/25 at 10:21 a.m. in the facility main dining room, the residents' breakfast trays being returned to kitchen were found unattended with meal tickets on them. Each meal ticket had resident's name, facility identification number, resident's colored photograph, room number, bed number and dining location in an easy to view status. Two people were observed entering the dining room.During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/19/25 at 10:30 a.m. with the Dietary Assistant 1 (DA 1), DA 1 was observed bringing residents' breakfast trays into kitchen and throwing meal tickets into a regular trash can while scraping the dishes. DA 1 stated that the trash bags were compacted at the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-22 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 ensure accurate assessments were completed for four of 36 sampled residents (Resident 9, Resident 98, Resident 129, and Resident 133) when: 1. Resident 9's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated resident assessment tool) was incorrectly marked for invasive mechanical ventilator (a breathing machine connected to a tube inserted into the windpipe through the neck);2. Resident 98's MDS did not reflect the resident's terminal prognosis;3. Resident 129's MDS did not indicate resident was on hospice care; and, 4.Resident 133's MDS assessments were not consistent with resident's status. These failures increased the potential for residents not to receive consistent care.Findings: 1.A review of resident 9’s “admission Record,” dated 8/22/25, indicated Resident 9 was admitted to facility in January 2025 with the diagnoses including sleep apnea (a sleep disorder when breathing pauses repeatedly during sleep). Resident 9 had mental capacity to make own…
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 · E2025-08-22 · 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 ensure:Medications and medical supplies were not available for residents' use past their expiration dates in three of three medication carts;Crash carts (storage of supplies needed in emergency situations) were checked regularly, and medical supplies were complete and were not past their expiration dates; andA medication was stored in the Resident Food Refrigerator at the memory unit.These failures had the potential for residents to receive medications with unsafe or reduced potency from being used past their expiration dates, and the potential for malfunctioning equipment and delays during emergency situations for a census of 137.Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/20/25 at 3:02 p.m. with Licensed Nurse 8 (LN 8), an inspection of the facility's Memory Unit Medication Cart identified the following expired medications and medical supplies: One syringe Haloperidol (medication used to treat mental disorders) 1 mg (milligrams, a unit of measurement) – expired 8/18/25 One bottle Isopropyl…
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 before2025-08-22 · 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 store food in a sanitary manner for a census of 137 residents, when: 1. Expired, undated, unlabeled, spoiled, unsealed opened food items, and a dirty food tray were found in the walk-in refrigerator, walk-in freezer, and in the cooking area in the kitchen;2. The floor in the walk-in freezer was dirty;3. Cooking equipment and utensils were not clean;4. Undated and expired food items were stored in the resident food refrigerators in the three nursing units and temperature logs were inconsistent; 5. No written instructions were followed for cooking spinach; and 6. There were no air gaps for the plumbing system under the sinks and dishwashing machine in the kitchen.These failures had the potential to contaminate food in the kitchen and cause foodborne illnesses among residents. Findings:1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/19/25 at 8:45 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor 1 (DS 1), the food items stored in the walk-in refrigerator, walk-in freezer, and cooking area were observed. DS 1 confirmed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-22 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — patternDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 trash was stored in a sanitary manner for a census of 137 when, trash dumpsters were observed with open lids.This failure had the potential to create breeding ground for insects and rodents.Findings:During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/19/25 at 10:30 a.m. with the Head [NAME] (HC), a facility dumpster outside the kitchen backdoor was observed with the lid open. An additional trash container which had trash including used gloves, hairnet and a cigarette butt was found with no lid. The HC confirmed the lids were open. During an interview on 8/22/25 at 3:17 p.m. the Registered Dietitian (RD), RD agreed that open dumpsters and trash cans near the kitchen were sources to attract flies. RD stated flies could have entered the kitchen when the back door was opened. RD further stated flies could cause food contamination which could lead to food borne illnesses among the residents.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, General Cleaning of Food and Nutritional Services…
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 before2025-08-22 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain effective infection prevention and control measures to prevent the occurrence and spread of infections to residents, when: 1. The enhanced barrier precautions (EBP, infection control measures to prevent spread of infections) signage was not accurately assigned; 2. The nursing staff did not implement EBP for Resident 36;3. The nursing staff did not close the door of rooms on isolation precautions for COVID-19 positive residents;4. Blood Pressure (BP) cuff and BP machine were not disinfected with appropriate disinfectant;5. Resident 66's nebulizer (a machine that turns liquid medicine into a mist that can be easily inhaled) mask was not labeled and stored properly; and,6. Resident 98's humidifier (used to provide additional humidity to oxygen therapy) was left open when not in use and not replaced as ordered. These failures increased the potential to spread infections and cross contamination.1. An observation was conducted on 8/19/25 starting at 12:02 p.m., Resident 35's room had an EBP sign by 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.
Show the remaining 20 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-22 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 an effective pest control program was implemented for a census of 137 residents, when flies were observed in the kitchen. This failure decreased the facility's potential to maintain a pest-free environment in the kitchen that prevented food contamination.Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/19/25 at 10:45 a.m. with Dietary Supervisor 1 (DS 1), flies were observed in the kitchen. Flies were observed flying around and landing on kitchen counters, food processors, cooking utensils, dishes, and food. DS 1 confirmed the presence of flies in the kitchen and stated it posed a risk for food contamination.During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/19/25 at 11:55 a.m. with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), MS confirmed the flies problem in the kitchen. MS stated the last pest control was conducted on 8/8/25 and agreed the issues were not resolved.During an interview on 8/19/25 at 3:40 p.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD confirmed an infestation of flies in the kitchen.…
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 before2025-08-22 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 one resident (Resident 26) out of a census of 137 was protected from abuse when Resident 26 slapped Resident 52 on the right side of her face.This failure had potential to result in physical injury for Resident 52.During a review of Resident 52's clinical record, the record indicated Resident 52 was admitted in April of 2025, with a diagnosis of Dementia (a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life). A review of Resident 52's Medical Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 6/4/25 indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. During a review of Resident 52's progress noted dated 8/16/25, the note indicated, . a CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] looked up to see [Resident 26] slap [Resident 52] across the right side.During a review of Resident 26's clinical record, the record indicated Resident 26 was admitted in November of 2024, with a diagnosis of dementia. A review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-22 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a significant change in status assessment (SCSA- an assessment to reflect a major decline or improvement in the resident's status) was completed for one of 36 sampled residents (Resident 129) when Resident 129 was enrolled in a hospice program (compassionate care for people who are near the end of life provided within a health care facility). This failure increased the potential for plan of care not to be updated to meet the current needs for Resident 129. A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 129 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses including frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder (group of brain disorder leading to significant changes in behavior, movement, language and personality) and major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest in activities). A review of Resident 129's physician order revised 2/28/25 indicated, Terminal care via [name of hospice program] with prognosis of 6 month [sic] or less…
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 · D2025-08-22 · 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 professional standards of care were followed for two of 36 sampled residents (Resident 116 and Resident 47), when:1. The nurse did not document an assessment of Resident 116's mid-upper arm for proper Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line management per physician order; and 2. The facility altered Resident 47's Insulin administration record. These failures had the potential to negatively affect Resident 116's and Resident 47's health and their ability to achieve their highest practical well-being due to not receiving treatment and services in a timely manner and inaccurate medical information. Findings A review of Resident 116’s medical record indicated Resident 116 was admitted to the facility in June of 2025 with diagnoses of Infection and Inflammatory reaction due to Internal Right Knee Prosthesis (a surgical procedure to implant an artificial body part) and Type Two Diabetes (a chronic disease where the body doesn’t produce enough insulin to maintain normal blood sugar levels). 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 before2025-08-22 · 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 of 36 sampled residents (Resident 47) received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, when the facility did not follow physician's orders for insulin (a medication that lowers high level of glucose in the blood) and glucose gel (sweet liquid containing sugar used to quickly raise blood sugar), and did not monitor blood sugar as directed by physician on multiple occasions when Resident 47's blood sugar dropped to critically low levels. These failures increased the risks for Resident 47 for possible complications of hypoglycemia (when the blood sugar is lower than normal) and hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), which could affect resident's health and safety. Findings:A review of Resident 47's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 47 to the facility in 2022. Resident 47's diagnoses included type I diabetes mellitus (DM, a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control) with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA, a life-threatening complication of DM when the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-22 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 that pain management was provided, consistent with professional standards of practice for one of 36 sampled residents (Resident 122), when the resident received inadequate pain management and, when non-pharmacological (non-medication) interventions were not used in conjunction with pain medication administration to manage pain. This failure placed Resident 122 at risk for unmanaged pain that had the potential to affect resident's sleep and diminish the residents' quality of life.Findings:A review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 122 in the spring of 2025 with multiple diagnoses which included chronic pain and depression. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 4/14/25 indicated Resident 122 was cognitively intact and had no hallucinations or delusions. Resident 122's Pain Interview assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident experienced pain…
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 · D2025-08-22 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement an efficient process to accurately document and secure emergency medications (E-Kit) for a census of 137.This failure had the potential for emergency medications to be unavailable when needed, and the potential for not meeting the residents' therapeutic needs or worsening of their medical conditions.Findings:During an inspection of the Station 2 Medication Storage Room on 8/20/25 at 4:13 p.m. with Licensed Nurse 10 (LN 10), the E-Kit containing insulin (a hormone that removes excess sugar from the blood, can be produced by the body or given artificially via medication) was observed inside the medication refrigerator with a red tag (indicating the E-Kit had been opened by the facility). The E-Kit logs inside indicated one vial of Humalog (insulin lispro, a fast-acting insulin) 100units/mL (milliliters, a unit of measurement) was removed on 8/7/25, and one vial Lantus (insulin glargine, a long-acting insulin) 100units/ml was removed on 8/14/25. LN 10 confirmed that the E-kit was opened on 8/14/25 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 · D2025-08-22 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
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 coordination of care between the hospice team (care designed to provide supportive care for physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional needs to a terminally ill resident) and the facility for one of 36 sampled residents (Resident 133), when the resident's clinical records did not include hospice documents. This failure placed Residents 133 at risk for not receiving services necessary to promote comfort and quality of life. Findings:A review of 'Inpatient Service Agreement' between the [name of the hospice agency] and facility, dated 11/16/2023 indicated the hospice and the facility will communicate with each other and document such communications to ensure that the needs of the patients are addressed and met 24 hours a day. The agreement policy indicated, The Hospice is providing the facility with a copy of the patient's plan of care [POC]. at the time of the patient's admission or as soon.as possible, and.specify the inpatient services to be furnished.The Hospice . patient's clinical record includes a 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-22 · tag F0868 — isolatedHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
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 facility's Medical Director (MD) attended the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI, a program that helps healthcare facilities consistently evaluate and improve their services and improve the quality of life and quality of care for residents) committee meetings. This failure had the potential for the QAPI meetings to lack medical guidance for medical care concerns, lack quality care improvement activities, lack effective evaluation of the program resulting in negative outcomes and decline in quality of care for a census of 137 residents.During a concurrent interview and record review with the Administrator (ADM) and Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/22/25 at 2:10 p.m., the ADM stated that from January to May 2025 the facility held QAPI meetings monthly when they reviewed quality reports, identified the concerns with residents' care, discussed quality safety concerns, and ensured corrective actions were implemented. The ADM stated that the Medical Director (MD), who have been in the facility since…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment free from accidents and hazards that were within the facility's control, when the facility did not provide supervision to prevent one of three residents sampled for elopement (to leave a health care facility without permission or authorization), from leaving the facility without staff awareness and wandered in their wheelchair toward a busy street. Staff had not noticed Resident 1 missing until a staff member saw him on the street in his wheelchair on her way to work.This failure had the potential to result in physical harm, getting ran over by a car, and exposure to the elements (weather) for all residents who wander and/or have the potential to elope. This could have serious negative impacts on their safety, physical and emotional well-being.During a review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Wandering/Elopement, dated 4/17/24, indicated, It is the policy of this facility to protect residents from…
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 before2025-06-09 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the infection preventionist (IP) failed to report two potential infectious disease outbreaks withing 24 hours to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), in accordance with the facility's Unusual Occrrence Reporting policy. This failure had the potential for infection to spread to residents, staff and visitors and negatively impact residents health and safety and delayed oversight by CDPH. Findings: A review of a facility policed titled, Unusual Occurrences, with a reviewed date of 4/17/2025, indicated, Unusual occurrences shall be reported to the Department of Health Services and/or the local Health officer. The administrator/designee shall report the following unusual occurrences to the Department of Health Services according to accepted National Standards. A review of a facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, with a revision date of 12/2023, indicated, Outbreak management is a process that consists of . reporting the information to appropriate public health authorities . A review of a facility policy…
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 before2025-04-11 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the infection preventionist (IP) failed to report a flu and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV – contagious virus that causes infections of the respiratory tract) outbreak in the facility in accordance to accepted national standards. This failure had the potential to cause a community wide outbreak for both RSV and Flu by potentially not preventing further transmission of the diseases. Findings: A review of a facility policy titled, Unusual Occurrences, with a reviewed date of 4/1/2024, indicated Administrator/designee shall report the following unusual occurrences within 8-24 hours to the Department of Health Services . Epidemic outbreaks of any disease, prevalence of communicable disease (an infection that can be transmitted from one person to another). During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 2:27 PM with IP, stated the fact that the outbreak occurred on a weekend was the problem since she does not work weekends and did not know she needed to report it. IP stated, I did miss a weekend, but I didn ' t report it in 24 hours. I am now aware I should '…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement their Abuse policy and investigate an injury of unknown origin for one of three residents who were sampled for abuse (Resident 1), when Resident 1 was found to have a bruise on her left hip and the facility could not determine where the bruise came from, in order to rule out abuse. This failure had the potential for residents not to be protected against abuse in the facility, which could negatively impact their quality of life and physical, emotional and psychosocial well-being. Findings: A review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property; Prevention Of reviewed 4/17/24, indicated, D. Complaints, observations, suspicions, or reporting of incidents, falls, bruises and skin tears (of suspicious or unknown origin) will be investigated to rule out abuse. Occurrences, patterns, and trends will be assessed by administrative staff, licensed staff, and the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 one of three sampled resident's (Resident 1) care plans were developed when: 1. A care plan was not developed when a bruise of unknown origin was found on Resident 1's left hip. 2. A care plan was not developed when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A trimmed Resident 1's fingernails and caused lacerations (cuts) on two of her fingers with the nail clippers. These failures had the potential to result in Resident 1's needs not being identified, evaluated and reevaluated, and had the potential to contribute to unwanted pain and infection which could negatively impact her quality of life and ability to attain or maintain her highest practicable level of well-being. Findings: A review of the facility's policy titled, Wound Care (Other than Pressure Ulcers) dated 4/17/24, indicated, If a skin condition is identified, i.e. skin tear, bruise, laceration, abrasion, etc. the licensed nurse will: implement or update a care plan. 1. During a review 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 before2025-03-18 · 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 ensure quality care was provided for one of three residents (Resident 1), who were sampled for quality of care when: 1. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A trimmed Resident 1's fingernails and cut the skin and caused lacerations (cuts) on two fingers of her right hand with the nail clippers and the facility had not conducted corrective reeducation with CNA A, to prevent this from happening again. 2. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LN) B did not follow the wound care treatment directions for Resident 1's lacerated fingers, in accordance with what the physician ordered. These failures had the potential to cause Resident 1 unnecessary pain, discomfort and infection and have a negative impact on her quality of life and physical, emotional, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: During a record review of facility policy titled, Wound Care (Other than Pressure Ulcers) 4/17/24, indicated The licensed nurse will track effectiveness of treatments 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 · Ecited before2024-04-03 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to report an outbreak of scabies (tiny mites that crawled under the skin, caused itching, a rash, and was easily spread from person-to-person) to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH, worked to protect the public ' s health) when three residents and one staff member tested positive for scabies. This failure had the potential to cause further spread of scabies to other residents. Findings: A review of AFL 23-08 (All Facilities Letter (AFL), information regarding updated rules, provided to facilities, from CDPH), dated 1/18/23, indicated, the purpose of the AFL reminded facilities of the requirement to report outbreaks (more cases of a disease or infection than expected) to CDPH along with the local public health officer (public health, a resource to the community, that assisted facilities during an outbreak of disease or infection). A review of the undated policy titled, Outbreak Reporting, indicated, the facility would Report all suspected and confirmed outbreaks . to CDPH and the local public health…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-03 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor one out of three sampled residents (Resident 2) that were prescribed an antipsychotic medication (altered brain activity) when there was no monitor in place for staff to evaluate the response or effectiveness of Resident 2 ' s prescribed Haloperidol (Haldol, an antipsychotic) use. This failure could result in the unnecessary use of an antipsychotic medication and cause a decline in overall health status. Findings: A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care of Residents with Dementia and Care of Residents with Dementia Receiving an Antipsychotic Medication, revised 12/29/23, indicated, antipsychotic medications would be closely monitored for effectiveness. A review of Resident 2 ' s undated Admissions Record, indicated, Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of dementia (memory loss) and severe major depressive disorder (a sad mood) with psychotic features (symptoms that affected the mind…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-12-01 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to follow infection control standards for hand hygiene for three of seven sampled residents (Residents 58, 67 and 378) when: 1. A Licensed Nurse (LN) handled multiple meal trays and then handled a drinking straw without performing hand hygiene, for Resident 58. 2. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) handled multiple meal trays and then handled a drinking straw without performing hand hygiene, for Resident 67. 3. A LN did not perform hand hygiene before or after she obtained a blood sample from Resident 378, and then cleaned medical equipment while wearing the same gloves used to obtain the blood sample. 4. The Infection Preventionist (IP) was observed to lick her fingers before turning pages of documents. These failures had the potential to spread germs which could have caused illness and threatened the residents' health and well-being. Findings: A review was made of a facility policy titled, Hand Hygiene & Donning Gloves, revised 2/13/19,…
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 before2023-12-01 · 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 safety and sanitation guidelines were followed when: 1. Food was not labeled in the walk-in refrigerator. 2. Food equipment was stored in an unclean area. 3. Food stored in Resident 41's room was not labeled and had expired. These failures had the potential to cause food borne illnesses in a medically vulnerable population. Findings: 1. During a review of facility's policy titled, Labeling and Dating of Foods, dated 2023, indicated all food items in the storeroom, refrigerator, and freezer need to be labeled and dated. Newly opened food items will need to be closed and labeled with an open date and use by date that follows the various storage guidelines. All prepared foods need to be covered, labeled, and dated. Leftovers will be covered, labeled, and dated. During the initial tour of the facility kitchen on 11/28/2023 at 9:15 am, with Registered Dietician (RD) and Food Service Supervisor (FSS), the following food items were observed not labeled or dated: a. A metal pan on the bottom shelf 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 · D2023-12-01 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 publicly post the Nursing Hours Per Patient Day (NHPPD) sheets in a prominent place every day. This failure had the potential to prevent residents and visitors from having access to complete staffing information. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/30/23 at 9:16 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), staffing sheets were hanging on a bulletin board in the hallway near the lobby. The sheets were titled, [Facility Name] Direct Care Staff, with a line below the title for the date. A table was divided into three sections, one each for the day shift, evening shift, and night shift. Four columns were titled, Registered Nurses (RNs); Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs); Unlicensed Nursing Staff; and Other Direct Care Staff, with the numerical information written in by hand for each shift. Beneath the table was the Resident Census number. When asked if those were the NHPPD sheets, DON thought they were, but was not sure. During an interview on 11/30/23 at 12:10 PM, the Staffing Coordinator…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| THE RON REGGEV REVOCABLE TRUST DATE JUNE 30,2017 | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/14/2018 |
| TONS, NICHOLE | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/14/2018 |
| REGGEV, RON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/14/2018 |
| INFINITE HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/14/2018 |
| ANDERSON, PATRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/01/2022 |
| CHELLA, SARAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2022 |
| NANGALAMA, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
2 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.
About 77% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the California Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 056391. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-22, 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.