New Bethany Skilled Nursing
1441 Berkeley Dr, Los Banos, CA 93635 · Non profit - Corporation · 35 certified beds · (209) 827-8949 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (22% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (29) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 35.1% | 10.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.5% | 4.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.9% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 7.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 1.6% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 34.3% | 9.8% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.4% | 13.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 12.0% | 17.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.8% | 23.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.3% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.99 | 2.25 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 1.57 | 1.80 | 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.
46.1% 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 53 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 28.6% 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 28 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 46.1%CMS range 35.7–56.9 | 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 | 10.2%CMS range 6.1–15.5 | 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 | 28.6% | 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 | 21.4% | 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 | 35.7% | 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 | 94.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 2.6% | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 3.8–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 35 beds and averages 28.9 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.45 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.91 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 3.88 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.68 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.57 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
29 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 19 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to keep one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) free from falls when Resident 1 fell after Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 completed a two-person required mechanical lift (device used to safely raise, lower and transfer individuals with limited mobility) transfer without assistance using a stand-up lift (device to assist individuals transfer from a seated position to a standing position), failing to follow the resident's care plan and physician's order requiring a Hoyer lift (overhead full body sling lift) transfer. This failure resulted in Resident 1's fall causing her discomfort and need to be transported to the emergency department (ED) on 11/20/25 for evaluation and had the potential to cause significant injury and harm.During a review of the facility's report dated 11/19/25, the report indicated, . November 18, 2025 approximately 8:15 p.m. [Resident 1's name] was coming back from being taken to the bathroom, CNA transferred her…
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 before2025-09-05 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — widespreadEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of practice for two of four sampled residents (Resident 9 and 23 ) when:1.The Nutritional assessment was not completed by the Registered Dietitian (RD) for Resident 9's significant change of condition assessment dated [DATE].This failure had the potential to put Resident 9 at an increased risk unavoidable significant weight loss. 2.Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 did not assess Resident 23's pain prior to administering PRN (means as needed) pain medication (Acetaminophen - is a medication used to treat minor aches and pain and to reduce fever) on 9/3/25.This failure had the potential for Resident 23 not to receive an appropriate pain medication to effectively manage her pain. 3.LVN 1 did not check Resident 23's blood pressure and heart rate prior to administering a Metoprolol (a medication used to lower blood pressure and slows down heart rate) on 9/3/25. These failures had potential for Resident 23 to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure 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 all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards for five of eight residents (Residents 1, 8, 20, 21 and 28) when: 1. Residents 1 ,8 , 20, 21 and 28's medications located in the medication cart had the room number of the residents listed and had no label with patient identifiers (information used by healthcare providers to accurately and reliably identify a patient like name and date of birth ). These failures had the potential to result in a medication error (medication being given to the wrong patient).2. The medication room was widely open and unattended by authorized staff. This failure had the potential to result in unauthorized access and drug diversion (occurs when a medication is taken for use by someone other than whom it is prescribed or for an indication other than what is prescribed) of medications. 1.During a concurrent observation 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 · Fcited before2025-09-05 · 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 food was stored and prepared in accordance with professional standards for food services safety for 29 of 29 sampled residents when:1. A portion of Chicken meat was not fully submerged in water while thawing under running water2. The dishwasher had built up white residue on the surface and black dirt and debris on the top surfaceThese failures placed residents at risk for foodborne (sickness resulting from contaminated food) illness and food contamination.1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/2/25 at 9:00 a.m. with [NAME] 1, chicken meat was being thawed under running water, a portion of the meat was not fully submerged under water or in the path of the running water. [NAME] 1 stated the meat should have been fully submerged under water or in the path of the running water. [NAME] 1 stated submerging the meat helped ensure it thawed at a safe temperature and helped prevent the meat from being exposed to contaminants (substances that can make the food impure) that may fall on 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 · F2025-09-05 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement the quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI- a meeting where staff members come together to talk about ways to improve the quality of care for patients and prevent problems before they happen) plan for 29 of 29 sampled residents when the Registered Dietitian's (RD) QAPI recommendation to be involved in Interdisciplinary Team (IDT- a collaborative meeting where professionals from various disciplines [such as doctors, nurses, therapists, and social workers], come together to discuss and coordinate care for an individual) meetings were not followed:This failure had the potential to have resident weight changes go unmonitored by the RD.During an interview on 9/4/25 at 10:07 a.m. with the RD, the RD stated she has emailed the facility her QAPI report and recommendations for the facility to implement. The RD stated she has recommended to be involved in the facility's IDT meetings, but no action has been taken. The RD stated she would like to be invited to the meetings to better be informed about resident weight…
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 before2025-09-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections in the medication room and for two of two sampled residents (Residents 3 and 15) when 1.Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stored her personal belongings inside of the medication room on the medication counter. 2. Resident 15's oxygen nasal cannula (NC - a plastic tube used to deliver oxygen) was stored in an open package.3. Resident 3's NC was stored in the top drawer of the resident's nightstand with no packaging to protect it from the environment. These failures had the potential to result in cross contamination (the process by which germs are unintentionally transferred from one substance or object to another, with harmful effect).1.During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/4/25 at 9:33 a.m. with Registered…
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 before2025-09-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote the rights of the residents, and treat residents with respect and dignity for two of three sampled residents (Resident 7 and 22) when1.The facility did not use an alternate communication method with non-English speaking resident (Resident 7) such as language assistance, communication card, interpreters or translated materials. This failure violated Resident 7's rights to understand the care provided to her in a language she understood and had the potential to result in Resident 7's needs to go unmet.2.Resident 22 was waiting to be fed by the nursing staff while watching another resident eating lunch meal at the same table on [DATE]. This failure violated Resident 22's right to be treated with respect and dignity in a manner which recognized each resident's individuality. 1.During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE] at 3:39 p.m. with the Activities Director (AD) in the activities room, Resident 7 was up in a wheelchair…
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 before2025-09-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two of six sampled residents (Resident 7 and 9) when:1.The facility did not use an alternate communication method with non-English speaking resident (Resident 7) such as language assistance, communication card, interpreters or translated materials.This failure violated Resident 7's rights to understand the care provided to her in a language she understood and had the potential to result in Resident 7's needs to go unmet.2. Resident 9's fall care plan intervention to minimize fall related injuries was not implemented. Resident 9 did not have bilateral floor mats on the sides of the bed.This failure had the potential to place Resident 9 at an increased risk of an avoidable fall and obtaining fall-related injuries. 1.During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE] at 3:39 p.m. with the Activities Director (AD) in the activities room, Resident 7 was up in a wheelchair…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-05 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services which ensured appropriate receipt, reconciliation and identification of controlled drugs (medications with potential for abuse or addiction and are required by federal law to be accounted for by Licensed Nurses) for two of seven sampled residents (Residents 10 and 14) when Licensed Nurses did not verify and ensure completion of the controlled drug record upon receipt from the pharmacy.This failure had the potential for drug diversion (drugs used illegally) of controlled substance medications.During an interview on 9/5/25 at 10:49 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, the practice at the facility when controlled drugs were delivered was that the Licensed Nurse would check the manifest with the medication and the Licensed Nurse should sign the controlled drug record if all was correct.During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/5/25 at 3:47 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-05 · 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 notify the resident's representative in writing of the transfer to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 33) when Resident 33 was transferred to the GACH on 7/4/2025 and his Responsible Party (RP - a person responsible for another person's healthcare decisions) was not informed of the reason for the transfer.This failure resulted in the lack of written notification for Resident 33's change in condition.During an interview on 9/6/25 at 8:18 a.m. with the License Vocational Nurse/Director of Staff Development (LVN/DSD), the LVN/DSD stated, Resident 33 was transferred to a GACH on 7/4/25. The LVN/DSD stated Resident 33's RP was given verbal notice of Resident 33's transfer to the hospital on 7/4/25. The LVN/DSD stated Resident 33's RP was not provided with a written notice of Resident 33's transfer to the acute hospital. The LVN/DSD stated she was not aware a written notice was required whenever a resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 19 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-05 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise a comprehensive person-centered care plan to reflect assessments and interventions to address a significant change of condition for one of three sampled residents (Resident 9) when Resident 9's care plans were not updated and revised after completion of significant change of condition assessment. 1.Resident 9's nutritional care plan was not revised to reflect Resident's 9's significant change of condition assessment dated [DATE]. 2. Resident 9's activities care plan was not revised to reflect Resident's 9's significant change of condition assessment dated [DATE].These failures had the potential for Resident 9 not to receive the necessary care and services and put Resident 9 at an increased risk of not having her needs met.1.During an observation on 9/2/25 at 9:45 a.m. with Resident 9, in Resident 9's room, Resident 9 was lying in bed, asleep. Resident 9's bedside table contained a full pitcher of water.During a concurrent…
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 · D2025-09-05 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 nail care was provided for one of three sampled residents (Resident 9) when Resident 9's fingernails were long and dirty with brownish dirt built up underneath the nails.This failure had potential for Resident 9 in obtaining avoidable skin related injuries (including cuts (laceration), scrapes (abrasion), scratches, etc.) and infection (the invasion and growth of germs in the body).During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/2/25 at 11:00 a.m. with Resident 9, in Resident 9's room, Resident 9 was awake, alert oriented to her name only. Resident 9 stated her name and declined to be interviewed. Resident 9's left hand fingernails are long and dirty with brownish dirt built up underneath the nails mostly on left thumb finger. Resident 9's right hand was tucked underneath the blanket.During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/4/25 2:35 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2, in Resident 9's room, Resident 9'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 · D2025-09-05 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a hearing device was in placed to maintain resident's hearing abilities for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 had not been using a left ear implant hearing device (a surgical device that restores or improves hearing in individuals with severe hearing loss or deafness).This failure had resulted in Resident 1 experiencing a difficulty in hearing during conversation with staff and other residents and having the potential not to effectively communicate his needs with the staff. During an observation on 9/2/25 at 12:00 p.m. with Resident 1, in the dining room, Resident 1 was sitting in a wheelchair in front of the table waiting for his lunch meal. Resident 1 was alert and oriented to his name. Resident 1 was pleasant, clean and well groomed. Resident 1 had difficulty hearing during the conversation. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/2/25 at 12:05 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3,…
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 · D2025-09-05 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 each resident received and was provided food that accommodates the resident's preferences or provide a substitute meal of similar nutritive value for two of three residents (Residents 1 and 25) when1. Resident 1 was served and consumed non-fortified substitute/alternative food during lunch on 9/2/25.2. Resident 25 disliked gravy and was provided lunch with gravy, ate 10 percent of the meal, and was not offered a substitute meal at lunch on 9/2/25. This failure had the potential for Residents 1 and 25 not meeting the calories required to maintain the weight and nutritional status and placed Residents 1 and 25 at risk for avoidable significant weight loss. 1.During an observation on 9/2/25 at 12:00 p.m. with Resident 1, in the dining room, Resident 1 was sitting in a wheelchair in front of the table waiting for his lunch meal. Resident 1 was alert and oriented to his name. Resident 1 was pleasant, clean and well groomed. Resident 1…
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 · D2025-09-05 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that medical records were complete and accurately documented for one of three sampled residents (Resident 4) when Resident 4's Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST- a document that contains a persons end of life wishes) form was not signed by Resident 4's current responsible party (RP-an individual who has control over healthcare decisions).This failure had the potential to result in Resident 4's healthcare wishes not being followed.During an interview on [DATE] at 11:38 a.m. with Social Services Director/ Medical Records (SSD/MR) the SSD/MR stated the process of the facility was to review and update the POLST form once a year and as needed. The SSD/MR stated Resident 4's spouse was her RP before 5/2025. The SSD/MR stated, Resident 4's spouse's health status changed, and he was no longer able to make healthcare decisions. The SSD/MR stated Resident 4's RP was currently her son. The SSD/MR stated Resident 4's POLST needed to be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-05 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 identify and monitor safety and accident hazards (are situations or factors with the potential to cause harm or damage in a workplace) when a personal portable electric heater (is a device that converts electric current into heat) was being used in the Infection Preventionist (IP) room. This failure placed the facility at an increased risk of fire.During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/5/25 at 8:40 a.m. with the Social Services Director (SSD), in SSD/IP's room, a personal portable electric heater was located on the floor at the back of the IP's chair. The IP nurse was not in the room. The SSD stated the personal portable heater belonged to the IP nurse. The SSD stated it was hot in the room. The SSD stated the IP nurse had been using her personal portable heater because she was always cold.During an observation and interview on 9/5/25 at 9:17 a.m. with the Maintenance Supervisor (MTNS), the MTNS went to IP's room, and the personal portable electric heater was on with heat coming out. The MTNS…
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 before2024-10-07 · 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 there was a full-time qualified person responsible for food and nutrition services (FNS) when the Registered Dietitian and Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS) were employed part time and failed to provide the required number of hours for oversight of FNS. This failure resulted in a lack of oversight for food and nutrition services and had the potential to compromise the dietary and nutritional needs of the residents. (Cross reference F812) Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/7/24 at 10:44 a.m. with Dietary Aide (DA) 1, DA 1 was in the kitchen with a hair restraint on, hair was hanging out of the restraint around her ears, temples, and forehead. DA 1 stated the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS) was off and because she had a full-time job at a different facility. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/7/24 at 10:49 a.m. with the Assistant [NAME] (AC), the AC stated the DSS was part time and would normally come to the facility on weekends, in the evenings or early…
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 before2024-10-07 · 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 food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food services safety when: 1. The spice storage area contained food products which were not discarded on or before the expiration dates according to facility policies. 2. There was a cart with multiple personal belongings and used items in the kitchen area. 3. Four of four staff did not have their hair properly covered by a hair restraint. These failures placed residents at risk for foodborne illness and contamination. (Cross reference F801) Findings: During an observation on 10/7/24 at 10:44 a.m. with Dietary Aide (DA) 1, DA 1 was in the kitchen and her hair restraint was not covering the hair around her ears, temples, and forehead. During an observation on 10/7/24 at 10:49 a.m. with the Assistant [NAME] (AC), the AC did not have her hair restraint on properly, exposing a large amount of hair above both ears. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/7/24 at 10:53 a.m. with the AC, a rolling cart was observed in the kitchen, under…
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 · D2024-08-28 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 provide written notification of the Bed-hold notice at the time of transfer for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1 was transferred to the acute care hospital (ACH) on 7/11/24 and the responsible party (RP) was not provided the written Bed-hold notice which specifies the duration of the Bed-hold policy according to federal regulations. This failure placed Resident 1 at risk for his resident rights to be violated. (Cross reference F626) Findings: During a telephone interview on 8/5/24 at 3:13 p.m. with Resident 1 ' s family member (FM) 1, FM 1 stated Resident 1 was transferred from the skilled nursing facility (SNF) to the ACH on 7/11/24. FM 1 stated the ACH had notified the Responsible Party (RP) they were ready to discharge Resident 1 back to the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) on 7/18/24 and the SNF had refused to readmit the resident. During an interview on 8/6/24 at 10:20 a.m. with the Administrator (ADM) and Director of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-28 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
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 residents who were hospitalized were permitted to return to the facility for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the facility refused to take Resident 1 back after Resident 1 was medically cleared (when a patient no longer needs to receive inpatient care) to return to the facility from the acute care hospital (ACH). This failure placed Resident 1 at risk for psychosocial harm by not allowing the resident to return to the skilled nursing facility (SNF) near his home and caused him to be transferred to a SNF in a different city. This caused a hardship for Resident 1 ' s spouse when she had to decrease the frequency of her visits to the resident. (Cross reference F625) Findings: During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 3:13 p.m. with Resident 1 ' s family member (FM) 1, FM 1 stated Resident 1 was transferred from the skilled nursing facility (SNF) to the ACH on [DATE]. FM 1 stated the ACH had notified the responsible…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-21 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 12 sampled residents (Resident 128 and 19) were treated with dignity and respect when: 1. Resident 19 was assisted with lunch by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 did not engage in conversation and did not inform the resident when she was providing beverages, spoons with food or wiping her face. This failure resulted in Resident 19 not being provided a respectful and dignified dining experience which could further enhance resident's quality of life. 2. Resident 128's urinary catheter (a flexible tube inserted through a narrow body opening into the bladder and used for draining urine) bag was left uncovered. Findings: 1. During an observation on 6/19/24 at 12:20 p.m. in the facilities dining room, CNA 1 was seated next to Resident 19 assisting her with her lunch. Resident 19 was nonverbal; her eyes were closed, fists clenched, and she was unable to feed herself. Resident 19 had a white cloth fastened around her neck covering the front of her chest area. CNA 1 was placing spoons of food…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-21 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide services which met professional standards of practice for 17 of 25 sampled residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 127, and 128) when: 1. LVN 1 failed to explain the medication name and indication to Resident 1, 13, 18, 21, 127, and 128 during medication administration. This failure had the potential to place Residents 1, 13, 18, 21, 127, and 128 at risk of receiving the wrong medication and experience unnecessary side effects. 2.The facility failed to have a Licensed Nurse confirm the lunch meal tray matched residents' dietary orders for Residents 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 21. This failure had the potential to place Residents 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 21, at risk of receiving the wrong meal, choking, allergic reactions and weight loss. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation on 6/18/24, at 11:01 a.m., inside Resident 127's room, LVN 1 administered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program to prevent the development and transmission of diseases for seven of 18 sampled resident (Resident 128, 8, 1, 9 177, 16, and 19) when: 1. Resident 177 was on contact precautions and isolations gowns were not stocked and available outside the room for staff to use. 2. Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 did not use an alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR-an alcohol containing liquid, gel or foam rubbed on hands that kill microorganisms) when passing out breakfast trays for five of seven residents (Resident 128, 8, 1, 9, 177). 3. CNA 1 failed to use an ABHR prior to and after feeding two of two residents (Resident 16, 19). This failure had the potential to result in the transmission of infection between residents. Findings 1. During an observation on 6/18/24 at 10:51 a.m. outside Resident 177's room, there was an orange sign on the left side of the door that indicated Resident 177 was on contact isolation (a patient with a contagious disease that can spread by touch). Below…
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 before2022-09-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — widespreadDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plan for ten of ten sampled residents (1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 222) when: 1. Resident 7 had four bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the four bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk assessment; obtain consent, physician order and care plan prior to the use of the four bed rails. 2. Resident 16 had two bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the two bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk assessment; obtain consent, physician order and care plan prior to the use of the two bed rails. 3. Resident 15 had two bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the two bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk assessment. After prompting from the surveyor, the consent, physician order and care plan were implemented on 9/22/22. 4. Resident 13 had two bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the two bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk…
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 · F2022-09-23 · tag F0700 — widespreadTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 ten of ten Residents (Residents 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 222) were assessed for the risk of entrapment (resident caught, trapped, or entangled in the space in or about the bed and side rail) from bed (side) rails (adjustable metal or rigid plastic bars in various sizes that attach to the bed, and can be placed in a guard (raised) or lowered position) prior to installation and had no consent (form signed by resident or family explaining the risks of side rail use), physician order, indication for use, and care plans prior to the use of side rails when: 1. Resident 7 had four bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the four bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk assessment; obtain consent, physician order and care plan prior to the use of the four bed rails. 2. Resident 16 had two upper bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the two bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk assessment; obtain consent,…
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 before2022-09-23 · 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 food was stored and/or prepared in accordance with professional standards for food services safety when: 1. Food products stored in the dry storage area and refrigerator contained food items that were not labeled and dated and discarded on or before the expiration dates. 2. Shelled eggs prepared for residents were not pasteurized eggs. 3. Kitchen staff did not follow the facility's policy for Cool Down. These failures placed residents at risk for foodborne illness and food contamination. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/20/22, at 9:01 a.m., with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), in a refrigerator in the kitchen, there were two diet cakes in circular pans with a label adhered to the plastic covering on each cake, and there were no dates written on the label. The DS stated, I made those cakes last night, I put the labels on the cakes but forgot to write down the date. During an observation on 9/20/22, at 9:07 a.m., in the kitchen, there were five clear bins filled with assorted…
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 · D2022-09-23 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 one of one sampled resident (Resident 20) was free from physical restraints when Resident 20 had a self-releasing seat belt with alarm and the initial physical restraint evaluation had not been performed to determine the need for the seat belt. This failure resulted in Resident 20 to be unnecessarily restrained and kept her from getting up or moving freely due to the self-releasing seat belt. Findings: During an observation on 9/20/22, at 11:40 a.m., in front of room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 20 was sitting in her wheelchair with a belt across her lap. During a review of Resident 20's Face Sheet, undated, the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis (occurs when the cartilage that cushions the ends of bones in joints gradually deteriorate), osteoporosis (a disease in which bones become fragile and more likely to break), and difficulty walking. During 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 · D2022-09-23 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 Licensed Nurses have the competencies necessary to meet the needs of the residents for ten of ten sampled residents (Residents 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 222) and Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 and Director of Staff Development DSD/IP did not have training and competencies on the proper use of bed rails when: 1. Resident 7 had four bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the four bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk assessment; obtain consent, physician order and care plan prior to the use of the four bed rails. 2. Resident 16 had two bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the two bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk assessment; obtain consent, physician order and care plan prior to the use of the two bed rails. 3. Resident 15 had two bed rails raised. Prior to the use of the two bed rails, staff did not conduct an entrapment risk assessment. 4. Resident 13 had two bed rails raised. Prior to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-09-23 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy 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 the Dietary Services Supervisor (DS) possessed the appropriate competencies and skills set to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services department in accordance with the DS job description when: 1. The DS did not provide the necessary oversight of food safety, sanitation, and storage in the kitchen: 1a. Dietary staff were not implementing or accurately documenting safe food cool down process. 1b. Dietary staff did not label food and did not dispose expired food. 1c. The DS did not have the required certification or education to meet the needs of the DS position. These failures had the potential to place residents who consumed meals prepared from the kitchen to be at risk for foodborne illnesses related to growth of microorganisms (bacteria or fungus that cause nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea), weight loss, and malnutrition. (cross reference F812) Findings: 1a. During an interview on 9/21/22, at 12:09 p.m., with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated she did not prepare food the day before to cut…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FONESCA, LUCINDA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 02/11/2021 |
| FONSECA, JULIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/11/2021 |
| MOISES, ACACIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/11/2021 |
| D'CRUZ, ASTRIDA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/11/2021 |
| PETROVICH, HELEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/11/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 555758. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-05, 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.