The Tamalpais
501 Via Casitas, Greenbrae, CA 94904 · Non profit - Corporation · 52 certified beds · (415) 461-2300 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 43.8% | 10.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.1% | 4.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 1.2% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.2% | 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 | 1.8% | 1.6% | 3.3% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 29.0% | 9.8% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.0% | 13.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 4.3% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.5% | 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 | 2.6% | 12.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.1% | 93.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.9% | 23.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.4% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
55.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 60 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.7% 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 30 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 0.60 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 88% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 55.9%CMS range 47.2–63.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 5.3–15.0 | 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 | 46.7% | 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 | 73.3% | 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 | 33.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 87.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 6.2% | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 3.1–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.88 | 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 52 beds and averages 19.7 residents a day — about 38% occupied, or roughly 32 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.51 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.67 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.03 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.10 on weekdays — 41% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.96 to 0.65 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%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-11 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week from January 2025 to August 2025 for all the residents residing in the facility.This failure had the potential to result in insufficient nursing care and services for the vulnerable residential population residing in the facility.During a review of the facility's Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report, dated Quarter 2 2025 (January 1 - March 31), the PBJ Staffing Data Report indicated, the facility had no RN hours for the following Sundays: 1/5/2025, 2/2/2025, 2/16/2025, 3/2/2025, and 3/30/2025.During a review of the facility's Skilled Daily Staffing, assignment report dated Sunday, 8/17/2025, the Skilled Daily Staffing report indicated there was no RN coverage for skilled nursing.During a review of the facility's Skilled Daily Staffing, assignment report dated Sunday, 8/31/2025, the Skilled Daily Staffing report indicated there was no RN coverage for skilled nursing.During an interview on 9/10/2025 at 7:47 a.m. 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 · F2025-09-11 · tag F0836 — widespreadEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a dedicated full-time infection preventionist (IP) according to the California Assembly [NAME] (AB) 2644 (Chapter 287, Statutes of 2020). This failure had the potential to negatively affect the facility's infection prevention and control program and the residents' quality of care.Findings:During an interview on 9/10/25 at 3:21 p.m., with the IP, the IP stated her responsibilities included assist with infection surveillance, track and trend infections, train staff in infection control, keep up to date with infection control and prevention guidelines, and participate in the infection control committee and the quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI). The IP stated she was employed as a full-time IP for the Continuing Care Retirement Community's (CCRC, a residential community for seniors that offers various levels of care on a single campus) 3 levels of care - independent living, assisted living, and the skilled nursing facility (SNF). IP stated she tries to devote most of her time to the SNF because 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 · Ecited before2025-09-11 · 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 remove one multidose vial of PPD diagnostic antigen (chemical used to indicate tuberculosis) from the medication refrigerator 30 days after opening per facility policy. This failure had the potential to expose all the residents to use of an outdated antigen which could lead to an incorrect medical diagnosis for Tuberculosis (bacterial respiratory infection.)During an observation and interview on 9/9/2025 at 3:02 p.m. in the medication refrigerator located in the nursing station, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON verified a vial of PPD diagnostic antigen label indicated an opening date of 7/25/2025. The DON stated that the vial should have been discarded 30 days after opening.During an interview on 9/10/2025 at 4:48 p.m. with DON, the DON indicated that the facility policy was to label a multidose vial with the date when opened and to discard the vial 30 days after opening. The DON stated that medications lose effectiveness or potency after opening. During a review of the facility's policy 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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 2 sampled discharge residents (Resident 26), had a discharge order and discharge summary maintained in their medical record. This failure had the potential to adversely affect Resident 26's continuity of care after discharge. Findings:During a review of Resident 26's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), myocardial infarction (heart muscle damage), asthma (difficulty breathing), high blood pressure, and elevated liver enzymes.During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/10/2025 at 3:13 p.m. with Minimum Data Set Registered Nurse (MDSRN - nurse who specializes in collecting patient data in a long-term care facility), Resident 26's electronic medical record (EMR) was reviewed. The MDSRN indicated that the physician should write a discharge order and discharge summary to provide the resident guidance for continued medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · 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 a care plan (an individualized plan that provides direction on the type of care a resident needs) for one of 17 sampled residents (Resident 2). This failure had the potential for Resident 2 to not receive the specific services necessary to meet her needs.Findings: During a review of Resident 2's Profile Face Sheet (demographic), the Profile Face Sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a femur (bone of the thigh) fracture and Alzheimer's Disease (a progressive brain disorder that causes memory loss, confusion, and other cognitive decline).During an observation on 9/8/25 at 5:38 p.m., outside of Resident 2's room, an Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, are infection control interventions designed to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organism, MDROs - a germ that is resistant to many antibiotics) sign was posted on the wall below Resident 2's name plate. The EBP indicated, Stop. Everyone must:…
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 · D2025-09-11 · 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 the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable well-being for two of 17 sampled residents (Resident 8 and Resident 22) when:1. Resident 8 was observed without a wanderguard device (a wearable device designed to help prevent residents at risk of wandering from leaving a designated area in a care facility) per physician's order and there was no elopement assessment prior to placing a wander guard device on Resident 8. These failures had the potential to adversely affect Resident 8's physical and psychosocial well-being.2. Resident 22's floor mats were not placed as ordered by the physician. This failure had the potential to cause injury to Resident 22. Findings: 1.During a review of Resident 8’s “Profile Face Sheet (demographic),” the “Profile Face Sheet” indicated Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia (a general term for a decline in mental ability that is…
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 before2025-09-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen preparation area was maintained in a safe and sanitary manner when one of the staff with facial hair was observed cooking food not wearing a beard net. This failure had the potential to place all residents who received food prepared in the kitchen at risk for food contamination.During an observation on 9/8/2025 at 2:20 p.m. of the kitchen, [NAME] 1 was observed without a beard net covering his facial hair while standing next to the stove cooking.During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/10/2025 at 10:04 a.m. with Director of Dining Services (DDS), in the kitchen, the DDS verified that [NAME] 1 did not wear a beard net.During a record review of the facilities policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Uniform Dress Code, dated 1/2020, the P&P indicated, Restrain all facial hair with a beard net/restraint.During a review of the FDA Food Code 2022, 2-402 - Hair Restraints, the code states, Food employees shall wear hair restraints such . beard restraints . that covers hair, that are designed…
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 before2025-09-11 · 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 follow and implement infection control practices for two of 17 sampled residents (Resident 2 and Resident 7) when:1.Two staff members did not wear personal protective equipment (PPE) while providing care to Resident 2 who was in Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, are infection control interventions designed to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organism, MDROs - a germ that is resistant to many antibiotics) 2. One staff member did not clean and disinfect reusable blood pressure cuff in between resident use. These failures had the potential to cause the spread of infections to residents.Findings: 1.During a review of Resident 2’s “Profile Face Sheet (demographic),” the “Profile Face Sheet” indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a femur (bone of the thigh) fracture and Alzheimer’s Disease (a progressive brain disorder that causes memory loss, confusion, and other cognitive decline). During an observation 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 · Ecited before2023-12-08 · 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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices during medication administration for three (Residents #8, #12, and #87) of nine residents observed during medication administration. Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled Personal Protective Equipment - Gloves, revised in July 2009, revealed, Gloves must be worn when handling blood, body fluids, secretions, excretions, mucous membranes and/or non-intact skin. Further review of the policy revealed, 3. The use of gloves will vary according to the procedure involved. The use of disposable gloves is indicated: a. when it is likely that the employee's hands will come in contact with blood, body fluids, secretions, excretions, mucous membranes, and/or non-intact skin while performing the procedure. A review of a facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised in August 2019, revealed, This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. The policy revealed, 7. Use an alcohol-based…
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 · D2023-12-08 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility document reviews, the facility failed to provide advance beneficiary notices 48 hours prior to discharge from Medicare Part A services for two (Resident #19 and Resident #21) of three sampled residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. Findings included: A review of Resident #19's Profile Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #19 on 08/17/2023 with diagnoses that included acidosis (a buildup of acid in the bloodstream), acute kidney failure, and chronic kidney disease. A review of Resident #19's Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNFABN) form indicated their last covered day was 09/01/2023. The form was signed and dated 12/04/2023. A review of Resident #21's Profile Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #21 on 06/16/2023 with diagnoses that included pneumonia (lung infection), Parkinson's disease (a disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement, often including tremors), and Alzheimer's disease (A progressive disease that destroys memory and other important…
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 · D2023-12-08 · 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
Based on record review, interviews, facility policy review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to ensure a significant change in status comprehensive assessment was completed within 14 days of hospice services election for one (Resident #24) of one sampled resident reviewed for hospice services. Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled Hospice Care, revised in May 2021, revealed, 5. If appropriate a change of condition Minimum Data Set (MDS) shall be completed per RAI guidelines. A review of the CMS Long-Term Care RAI 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.18.11, dated October 2023, Chapter 2: Assessments for the RAI revealed, 03. Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) (A0310A = 4) The SCSA is a comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed when the IDT [interdisciplinary team] has determined that a resident meets the significant change guidelines for either major improvement or decline. The user's manual further specified, An SCSA…
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 · D2023-12-08 · 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
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a pro re nata (PRN, as needed) psychotropic medication (medications that affect the mind, emotions, and behavior) order specified the duration of use or stop date for one (Resident #20) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included: A review of Resident #20's Profile Face Sheet revealed the facility most recently admitted the resident on 03/30/2023 with diagnoses that included mild cognitive impairment (a condition in which people have more memory or thinking problems than other people their age) and unspecified disorientation. A review of Resident #20's Baseline & Comp [comprehensive] Care Plan, undated, revealed a Problem area that indicated Resident #20 required the use of psychotropic medications to manage their mood and/or behavior symptoms. The care plan specified the resident required antianxiety medication related to anxiety (Intense, excessive and/or persistent worry and fear) under hospice care. A review of Resident #20's physician's orders revealed orders dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not repackaged in one (third-floor medication cart) of two medication carts, and the facility failed to ensure an opened multi-dose vial was discarded in one (second-floor medication room) of one medication room observed. Findings included: During an interview on 12/08/2023 at 10:47 AM, the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated the facility did not have a policy that addressed repackaging medications. A review of a facility policy titled 5.3 Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles, revised on 04/01/2022, revealed, Once any medication or biological package is opened, Facility [sic] should follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates for opened medications. 1. Medication administration observation was conducted on 12/06/2023 at 7:59 AM with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #1. LVN #1 prepared Resident #12's medications, which included acetaminophen 325 milligrams (mg). LVN #1 removed one…
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 before2019-10-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was maintained in the kitchen when a kitchen staff member handled dirty dishes and then handled clean dishes without washing hands in between. This could potentially spread infectious microorganisms in a vulnerable population. Findings: During an observation and concurrent interview on 10/23/19 at 11:56 a.m., a kitchen staff member loaded used coffee cups into a rack for the dishwasher. The kitchen staff member then went over to the clean side of the dishwashing area and placed clean dishes in plastic bins up on a shelf. The staff member did not wash his hands before handling the clean dishes. When queried, Director of Food Services stated his expectation was for the staff member to wash his hands and re-glove when switching from handling dirty dishes to clean dishes. In response to a request for a dish washing policy, an untitled document, not dated, was provided with the policy statement, Facility will adhere to the Safety standards to ensure high standards of cleanliness 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.
“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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEQUOIA LIVING INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/25/1984 |
| MCVEY, SARAH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/09/2025 |
| ZIAIE MATIN, MARYAM | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| FRIESEN, PAUL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/03/2022 |
| TUMBALE, TERENCE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/09/2025 |
| AGOSTINO, VALERIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/07/2020 |
| CORRIEA, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/19/2021 |
| HERMAN, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| HOWIE, CARL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/01/2011 |
| ITO, HOLLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/25/2022 |
| JAMISON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| LIM, MARIANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/21/2020 |
| LYNN, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2020 |
| MAYEDA, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| SANDERSON, CORY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/29/2024 |
| SPAULDING, DIANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| SUEY, MARILYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/22/2023 |
| ATWOOD, MARTHA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/03/1994 |
| SHOEMAKE, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/09/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 19 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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.3M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the California Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 056077. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-11, 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.