Stratford Villa Post-Acute
752 Holmes Street, Livermore, CA 94550 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 27 certified beds · (925) 447-2280 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)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $46,779 in federal fines (most recent 2023-11-07)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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) | 2 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 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 | 6.9% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.8% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.7% | 7.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.2% | 1.6% | 3.3% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.1% | 9.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.4% | 13.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.3% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 2.9% | 10.2% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.8% | 12.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.4% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.3% | 23.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.6% | 11.2% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
68.4% 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 101 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 71.8% 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 39 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 68.4%CMS range 58.4–76.6 | 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 | 11.5%CMS range 8.0–16.0 | 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 | 71.8% | 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 | 66.7% | 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 | 48.7% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 1.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.4%CMS range 3.9–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 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 27 beds and averages 23.9 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 3 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 4.27 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.50 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 4.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.35 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.55 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-11-07 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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, for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1), the facility failed to ensure staff provide immediate life-saving measures (cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] - rescue breathing and or chest compressions when the heart stops) when Resident 1 was found in bed without vital signs (Vs, temperature, pulse, respirations, blood pressure ). Resident 1 was a full code (desired all medical emergency interventions when breathing and or heart stops). Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 declared Resident 1 expired (dead) and did not initiate CPR or call emergency personnel (9-1-1). This failure of LVN 2 to provide CPR and call emergency personnel was determined to constitute an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ). IJ represents a situation in which entity noncompliance has placed the health and safety of recipients in its care at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment or death. The facility ' s Administrator (Adm) and Registered Nurse Consultant (RNC) were verbally…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-11-07 · 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to perform a proficient neurological assessment (a series of questions and or motor tests in the event of a sudden change in condition to detect neurological changes: level of consciousness, orientation, movement of arms and legs, pupil size and reaction to light) for one (Resident 1). Staff did not maintain monitoring according to professional standards to detect early changes that required emergent medical treatment after Resident 1 sustained an unwitnessed fall. This failure resulted in not identifying a change in Resident 1 ' s neurological status. Resident 1 died in the facility the following day after the unwitnessed fall. Findings: A review of Resident 1 ' s hospital record titled, Physician Hospitalist Discharge and Transfer Instruction (PHDTI) dated [DATE], indicated the diagnosis of a subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH, bleeding in the space that surrounds the brain) due to a fall at home. The PHDTI indicated, Resident 1 was being discharged to a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-11 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure for two out of four residents (Resident 1 and 2), that their rights were protected, when facility did not verify the informed consents were obtained from the responsible party, and informed consent were not in Resident 1 and 2's medical records. These failures resulted in violating the residents' right to be informed with their medical treatment.Cross reference to F 684Findings:A review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR) indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's Disease without dyskinesia, without mention of fluctuations. Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - resident assessment tool) dated 11/08/2025 indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a scoring system used to determine the resident's cognitive status regarding attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall information) score of 05 (BIMS score of 00 - 07: severe impairment; 08 - 12: moderately impaired; and 13 - 15:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure for two out of four residents (Residents 1 and 2), Residents 1 and 2 receive treatments according to their needs. Residents 1 and 2 were treated with brain mapping/neurofeedback treatment (a biofeedback, which teaches self-control of brain functions to subjects by measuring brain waves and providing a feedback signal. Neurofeedback usually provides audio and/or video feedback), without after treatment plan and care provided. These failures had potential to affect Residents 1 and 2's health and safety due to lack of care coordination.Cross reference to F 578Findings:1. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR), indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Parkinson's Disease without dyskinesia, without mention of fluctuations. Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - resident assessment tool) dated 11/08/2025, the MDS indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a scoring system used to determine the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · 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 ensure for one out of four residents (Resident 1), that Resident 1 was in a room with Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP - an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of resistant organisms that employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities), EBP was not followed during nursing care. This failure had the potential to spread infection when prevention was not consistently practiced.Findings:During a review of the facility's admission Record (AR), it indicated that Resident 2 was admitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses that included Encounter for attention to gastrostomy(a surgical opening into the stomach for a feeding tube to deliver nutrition, hydration, or medication directly). Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS - resident assessment tool) dated 12/25/2025 indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a scoring system used to determine the resident's cognitive status…
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 · F2024-03-21 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
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 state requirements were met for a full-time registered dietitian or the person designated to serve as the director of food and nutrition services was hired on staff on a full-time basis (35+hours/week). This failure had the potential for food and nutrition services staff to be inadequately trained and supervised to carry out food and nutrition services for 26 out of 26 residents. Findings: During an interview on 3/19/24 at 8:39 a.m., with the Dietary Supervisor (DS) and Registered Dietician (RD), DS stated he did not work full time in the Kitchen. DS said he also worked next door at the sister facility. DS further stated he provided dietary staff training and checked their competencies. DS stated he did not work full time and works at least 20 hours a week for the facility. DS further stated he also worked at the sister facility next door for 20 hours a week. RD stated she works part time at the facility, between 8-16 hours a week. During an interview on 3/19/24 at 12:30 p.m., with the Administrator…
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 before2024-03-21 · 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, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when: 1. Hand washing sink was located right next to coffee machine and beverage dispenser. 2. Multiple food items opened with no use-by dates; bag of permecian gravy opened 3/5/24, bag of chicken gravy mix opened 3/2/24, carton of lactose free milk opened 3/12/24, cartoon of pineapple juice opened 3/10/24. There were five pounds of Monterey jack cheese opened 3/11/24, and a plastic container of apple sauce, dated 3/10/24. 3. Three-compartment sink was not operated according to instructions. 4. Ice machine had brownish whitish hard sticky substance on the right area on the outside difficult to wipe off. 5. Three kitchen air vents and one fly trap by the outside door with excessive blackish dust. 6. Floor drains and air gap by the ice machine and walk-in refrigerator had brownish black discoloration. 7. Dietary staff picked up trash from the kitchen floor and proceeded to distribute water from beverage cart without…
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 · D2024-03-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe medication storage when the following medications were found in medication cart one: 1. Resident 22 did not have an accurate medication card label for Colchicine that matched the order the physician had prescribed. (Colchicine is a medication used to prevent or treat gout attacks. Gout is a disease that causes severe pain, swelling, redness and tenderness in joints). 2. Three and one-half loose pills were not in a labeled container. This failure had the potential for medication error and contamination. Findings: 1. During a review of the admission record, dated 3/19/24, indicated Resident 22 was admitted on [DATE], with the diagnosis of gout. During a medication administration observation on 3/19/24, at 8:21 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 gave Resident 22 one tablet of Colchicine 0.6 milligrams (mg) from Resident 22's medication card with a direction label that indicated to give Colchicine one tablet two…
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 · D2024-03-21 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and contain refuse properly when the dumpster was not closed. This failure had the potential of harborage and feeding of pests. Findings: During an observation on 3/19/24 at 8:39 a.m., with Dietary Services Supervisor (DS), one dumpster located by the side of the facility was full of trash bags and not closed or covered. There was no staff presence around the dumpster area. During an interview on 3/19/18 at 8:39 a.m., DS stated the dumpster was supposed to be closed. During an interview on 3/19/24 at 09:01 a.m., with Maintenance Director (MS) and Administrator (Admin), MS stated the dumpster was to be closed when not in-use. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled, Medical Waste, Handling of, revised September 2010, indicated outside compactor/dumpster must be locked when not in use and at night.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · 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 follow a written hospice (end-of-life) agreement that included joint responsibilities to develop and implement plan of care for one sampled resident (Resident 23) was admitted into the hospice program, when Resident 23 and Resident 23's representative (FM 1) were not included or participated in the development and implementation of Resident 23's hospice plan of care (POC). This failure had the potential to result in negative outcomes and lack of communication of a person-centered care needs for residents. Findings: Review of the Significant change in status-Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment screening tool used to guide care), dated 2/24/24, indicated; Resident 23's diagnoses included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia (a group of diseases characterized by progressive deficits in behavior, executive function or language) and senile degeneration of the brain (Dementia). Resident 23's Basic Interview of Mental status (BIMS) score was 01 poor cognition). Resident 23 had a clear speech, usually understood and understood others.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-11-07 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespreadSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
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, the facility's Quality Assessment Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to identify an adverse event (untoward, undesirable, and usually unanticipated event that causes death or serious injury, or the risk thereof, including near misses) and the root cause resulting in the death of one (Resident 1) of three sampled residents. Resident 1 was a full code (all emergency interventions in the event breathing and or heart stops). Staff failed to provide emergency medical treatment when Resident 1 was found unresponsive because nursing staff mistakenly thought Resident 1 had a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. This failure resulted in the QAPI committee not taking steps to review the circumstances of Resident 1's death and monitor their system for code status verification to correct the issue. Findings: A review of resident 1 ' s Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment form (POLST-directs individual end-of-life preferences during a medical emergency), dated [DATE], was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-03-24 · 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 follow proper sanitation and food handling practices when: 1. The walk-in refrigerator had four trays of previously frozen raw meat in the refrigerator for more than three days; the raw meat was not labeled with a use by date. 2. The reach-in refrigerator had undated and unlabeled individually packaged liquids and a bowl of cooked oatmeal. 3. Two dietary personnel did not perform hand hygiene and or glove changes during food handling. 4. The ice machine interior had a pink substance on the ice chute surface, and the exterior surface of the ice bin had a white residue along the bin seams. These failures had the potential to result in food contamination and foodborne illnesses. Findings: 1. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview with [NAME] 1, on 3/21/22, at 9:43 a.m., the walk-in refrigerator's temperature was 38 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The bottom shelf of the refrigerator had four separate trays of raw meat labeled and dated as follows: pork 3/18/22; beef 3/18/22; chicken 3/19/22; beef 3/19/22.…
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 · D2022-03-24 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor and document the fluid intake of one (Resident 19) of one resident that required dialysis (a treatment for kidney failure to remove waste products and excess fluids by external filtration of blood). The failure to monitor Resident 19's fluid intake for 29 of 90 shifts had the potential to result in Resident 19 consuming more fluids than ordered by the physician causing fluid overload with resultant problems of swollen extremities and difficulty breathing. Findings: A review of the document titled, admission Record, dated 3/24/22, indicated Resident 19 was admitted to the facility in February 2022, with a diagnosis of End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD, the stage of kidney impairment that appears irreversible and permanent and requires a regular course of dialysis or kidney transplant to maintain life.) A review of Resident 19's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) dated 3/1/22, indicated Resident 19 was on dialysis. A review of Resident 21's, Order Summary Report, dated 3/24/22,…
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 · D2022-03-24 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident 22) of one resident receiving anticoagulation medication (medication to prevent blood clot formation, commonly known as blood thinner) was free from unnecessary medication when staff did not monitor the side effects of Resident 22's use of apixaban (medication used to thin blood). This failure had the potential to result in Resident 22 developing adverse side effects such as bleeding. Findings: A review of Resident 22's admission Record indicated Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (an irregular heart rhythm) and tachycardia (heart rate over 100 beats per minute; the normal rate is 60-100 beats per minute). A review of Resident 22's, Order Summary Report, Active Orders as of 3/24/22, indicated a physician order, start date 2/28/22, for Resident 22 to receive one apixaban tablet two times a day for treatment of tachycardia and monitor for bruising. During a concurrent 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 · Dcited before2022-03-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment for two of five sampled residents (Resident 14, Resident 16) when staff failed to: 1. perform hand hygiene between glove changes when administering medication to Resident 14, and 2. clean the oxygen mask and tubing for Resident 16. This failure had the potential for infection of Resident 14 and Resident 16. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/23/22 at 09:03 a.m., in Resident 14's room, Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2), LVN 2 prepared Resident 14's medication by opening multiple medication bottles and medication packs with gloved hands and placing the medication into separate medicine cups. With the same gloved hands, LVN 2 went to Resident 14's bedside and touched Resident 14's remote control to adjust Resident 14's bed, adjusted Resident 14's blankets, and handed the medicine cups to Resident 14 without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene. A review of the facility's…
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 before2019-08-22 · 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 facility document review, the facility failed to label and store food under sanitary conditions when: 1. Five containers of strawberries had white fur on them. Three bananas had black and yellow skin. 2. One loaf of open large wheat bread was without a date. 3. Five small white bowls, two medium bowls two scoops with green handles were stacked and placed in the cabinet with water sitting in them. 4. Registered Dietician (RD) came into the kitchen and did not immediately wash her hands and completely cover her hair. These failures had the potential to cause food contamination and food borne illness in residents. Findings: 1. During an observation on and concurrent interview 8/21/19 at 8:05 a.m., in the walk in freezer, in a box there were five containers of strawberries with white fur on them dated 8/16/19. In the dry storage area, there were three bananas with black and yellow skin . The Dietary Manger (DM) stated fruit is kept three to five days. A review of the policy and procedure titled Storing Produce , dated 2018, indicated to check boxes 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.
“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
$46,779 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $15,593 — penalty dated 2023-11-07
- $15,593 — penalty dated 2023-11-07
- $15,593 — penalty dated 2023-11-07
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP — 32 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
The other 31 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIRESS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| FORBRIGHT BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 03/01/2020 |
| RODRIGUEZ, CURTIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| TILFORD, TOBY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| LINKS SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| CLAWSON, SCOTT | Individual | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/01/2020 |
| EARL, STEVEN | Individual | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/01/2020 |
| SANOFSKY, JACK | Individual | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/01/2020 |
| EIDE BAILLY LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| ANDERSON, CHAD | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| BEARDSLEY, MARY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| BERNHOLZ, VICTORIA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| CARTER, MELISSA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| DEGUZMAN, MYRNA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| FROJELIN, ANTONETTE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| MALANI, NARENDRA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| MORALES, COLETA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| PODEROSO, ISABEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| RAMIREZ, SHARON | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
| SUBIA, ELLEN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 21 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.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $223K 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
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 555899. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-03-21, 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.