Eastern Plumas Hospital- Portola Campus DP/SNF
500 First Street, Portola, CA 96122 · Government - Hospital district · 66 certified beds · (530) 832-4277 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)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Aug 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 4 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $69,450 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-24)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 | 27.0% | 10.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.0% | 4.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.6% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 7.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.4% | 1.6% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.4% | 9.8% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.4% | 13.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.4% | 10.2% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.9% | 12.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.72 | 2.25 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.70 | 1.57 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 66 beds and averages 59.8 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 6 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 4.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.01 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.76 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 4.96 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.16 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% 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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 14 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-07-24 · 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 ensure that residents were protected from accidents and hazards when: One of two residents sampled for falls with injuries (Resident 9), was transferred by staff from her bed to her wheelchair, without using the proper equipment. Two of three shower rooms were observed to have unlocked, open cabinets that contained disposable razors and a sharps container (a plastic safety container for needles and sharp objects), that was over spilling with used razors.These failures resulted in Resident 9 sustaining a broken ankle and had the potential for residents who used the shower rooms to be injured by cuts from razors which could negatively impact residents physical and emotional well-being. 1. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility for heart disease with heart failure, lymphoma (a form of blood cancer), a history of falling, cervicalgia (back pain), osteoporosis (brittle bones), and an above the knee amputated (surgically removed) left leg.…
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 before2025-05-14 · 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 ensure one of two residents (Resident 1) sampled for falls was free from an avoidable fall. According to the facility's assessments, Resident 1 had difficulty maintaining an upright posture and poor safety awareness. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) B observed Resident 1 leaning over and reaching for the floor but did not help Resident 1 to a safe position and left Resident 1 unsupervised. Resident 1 had no post fall assessment and Resident 1's care plan did not provide interventions for what to do if Resident 1 was found on the floor unwitnessed. This fall resulted in Resident 1 falling and sustaining a broken left hip. Resident 1 required hospital admission for surgery. Resident 1 had a decline in her physical, social, and mental well-being due to increased pain. Findings: A review of the facility's policy, Resident Safety, dated 7/1/24, indicated, It is the policy of [name of facility] to ensure the optimum safety for all residents at…
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 · G2025-05-14 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two residents (Resident 1) sampled for post-fall pain received the treatment and care to manage pain when: * Staff did not promptly assess Resident 1 for a change of condition for a new onset of pain in her left arm and left hip after she was found on the floor. Staff picked Resident 1 up off the ground and put her into a chair while she complained of pain. * Staff gave Resident 1 medication ordered for mild pain when she experienced moderate pain. * The Physician (MD) was not immediately notified of Resident 1's fall and complaint of pain with movement. These failures caused Resident 1 to experience moderate and severe left arm and left leg pain for eight hours, prevented her from eating lunch or dinner. Findings A review of the facility's policy, Change in Condition and Alert Charting, revised November 2024, indicated, A change in condition is defined as anytime an accident involving the resident results in injury which…
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 · G2025-03-20 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow up on an identified pressure ulcer (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence, where bones are close to the surface of the skin), to evaluate, and intervene in a timely manner to prevent an avoidable pressure ulcer for one of three residents (Resident 1) sampled for pressure ulcers. This resulted in Resident 1 developing a 1-centimeter (cm) x 1.25 cm pressure ulcer on her left heel. Findings: During a review of National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (a global driver of quality improvement and patient safety in health care) website newsletters titled, Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline, updated 2/25/25, indicated: · A pressure injury is localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue, usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. The injury can present as intact skin or an open ulcer and may be painful. The injury…
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 · E2025-07-24 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 a clean, homelike environment when three of three shower rooms were found to be less than adequately maintained when paint was chipping from walls and ceiling, door jambs were missing paint with hints of rust, shampoo, and/or other products had spilled and dried in an open cupboard with clean towels placed on top, bolts, screws, and nuts that adhere the tub and toilet to the floor were rusty, the foot of the tub and around the toilet was unclean, and hard bristle brushes to scrub the floor were left hanging on hand rails in the shower.This failure had the potential to result in disease transmission, with increasing health and overall wellbeing concerns to those residents utilizing the common space.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Cleaning and Sanitizing Shared Equipment, dated Last Revised 06/2024, the policy indicated, To prevent disease transmission.of shared patient care equipment (and areas) used…
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 · E2025-07-24 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — patternPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 to protect four of four sampled residents (Resident 3, 16, 20, and 45) from abuse by chemical restraints when Haldol (an antipsychotic medication used to alter mood and behavior) intramuscularly (IM, a shot) was used in excessive doses, without adequate indications for use, and without trying non-pharmacological interventions (redirection without using medication) first.This subjected the residents to potentially harmful and irreversible unwanted adverse side effects from antipsychotic use and violated their rights for alternative treatment methods prior to the use of medication. This had the potential to seriously impair their ability to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of physical, emotional and psychosocial well-being. Findings:According to Lexicomp an online National Library of Medicine information site for professionals, Haldol is not approved for the use of dementia-related psychosis. Haldol used in patients with dementia…
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 before2025-07-24 · 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 maintain sanitary, clean kitchen equipment when the ice machine acquired a large amount of mineral buildup (white coating that harbors bacteria) on the tray and the spout, debris was noted in the internal cabinet area of the machine, and the cupboard the ice machine sat upon did not appear clean.This failure had the potential to result in ice that was contaminated with bacteria which could negatively impact the health and overall well-being to residents, staff and visitors.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Cleaning and Sanitizing Ice Machines, dated revised 9/2024, the policy indicated, It is the policy of [the facility name] that all ice machines will be properly maintained and cleaned.They should be clean to the sight and touch.including ice machine tray and spout.They also remove exterior scaling as needed.During an observation on 7/22/25 at 5:00 pm, the ice machine was observed to have a great deal of mineral buildup on its tray and on the inside of the ice spout. The internal…
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 before2025-07-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control standards for 2 out of 5 sampled residents during a medication pass and dining (Resident's 1 and 23) when: 1. Staff did not sanitize a potentially contaminated instrument used to puncture and remove a safety seal on a medication.2. A medication container was brought into a resident's room and placed on a potentially contaminated surface without a barrier.3. Staff did not sanitize their hands after touching potentially contaminated surfaces while feeding residents in the dining room. This had the potential to spread a communicable disease and cause cross-contamination. 1.The facility’s policy titled, “Standard Precautions”, last approved 09/2024, was reviewed and indicated, It is the policy of [the facility name] that standard precautions be followed for all patient care .to reduce risk of transmission from both recognized and unrecognized sources of infections . and to prevent the spread of infection from patient…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-24 · 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, this requirement was not met when staff were inadequately trained in resident care for two of two sampled residents (Resident 9 and 36) when:1. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) failed to follow policy and the resident's care plan when transferring Resident 9 from bed, which resulted in Resident 9 sustaining a broken right ankle.2. A Registered Nurse (RN), delegated her responsibility to a CNA to administer oxygen to Resident 36. 1. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility for heart disease with heart failure, lymphoma (a form of blood cancer), a history of falling, cervicalgia (back pain), osteoporosis, and an amputated (surgically removed) left leg. Review of Resident 9's care plans (undated) indicated that staff should use Resident 9's, Procedures for Transfer, a printed sign in a plastic sleeve that was taped near Resident 9's bedside to instruct CNAs in safely transferring Resident 9. Resident 9's care plan indicated, 7. [Resident 9] can lean to the left…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-24 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to meet this requirement when staff failed to follow a physician ordered therapeutic diet and fortify (add extra calories) one of six sampled residents who were on therapeutic diets. (Resident 12)This had the potential to cause undesired weight loss, delayed wound healing and malnutrition for Resident 1 and other residents who had physician ordered fortified diets. A review of the facility's record titled, Policy and Procedures Manual: High Calorie/High Protein Supplements, Nutrition Interventions dated 2021 indicated, Individuals needing supplemental nutrition will be served a suitable high calorie/high protein diet, and Nursing staff will supervise the delivery and consumption of all supplements and record appropriately in the medical record. A review of the facility's diet manual used by kitchen staff, Fortified Diet was defined as Foods that have protein, carbohydrates, and/or fats added to increase the total nutritional value of the food. A review of the facility's physician-ordered diet for Resident 12…
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 · D2025-05-14 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 promptly identify and notify the physician and responsible party of a change of condition for one of two residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 had a fall which resulted in a new onset of pain. This resulted in an eight-hour delay in treatment for Resident 1 which caused unnecessary pain and suffering. Findings: A review of the facility ' s policy titled Change in Condition and Alert Charting revised 11/24, indicated A change in condition is defined as anytime an accident involving the resident results in injury which requires provider ' s intervention; there is a significant change in the resident ' s physical, mental, or psychosocial status or behavioral condition changes .It is the policy of [name of facility] to promptly recognize any resident changes in condition and implement alert charting. The nurse will conduct an assessment and notify the resident ' s primary provider, resident representative and the resident. A review of Resident 1 ' 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 · D2025-03-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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 Interview and Record Review, the facility failed to meet this requirement when a staff member spoke to a resident (Resident 1) in a manner the resident perceived as disrespectful. This had the potential to result in psychological harm to Resident 1 and compromised the resident's sense of well-being and feeling of being in a home-like environment. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility for conditions including age-related debility (unable to perform tasks that are part of daily living), arthritis, and heart disease. A review of the facility's policy titled, Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Reporting indicated that each resident shall be treated as an individual with dignity and respect and shall not be subject to abuse of any kind. The policy further defined abuse as including verbal abuse. Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (a series of tests for residents' functional and mental abilities) that was performed by the facility on 12/7/24 (Section GG) indicated that she needed Substantial/Maximal Assistance for most activities, including toileting. Her functional and mental…
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 · E2025-03-20 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment) accurately reflected the status of two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and 3) when the skin assessments did not accurately reflect their skin status. This failure had the potential for staff to not be fully informed of the residents ' health status to determine the need for further assessment and care interventions. Findings: During a review of the facility ' s policy titled, Minimum Data Set and Resident Assessment Instrument Process, revised 5/2022, indicated, It ' s the policy of this facility to complete the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) and/or the Minimum Data Set (MDS) in accordance with the utilization guidelines set forth in Federal regulations. During a review of Long -Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User ' s Manual, version 1.18.11, updated 10/2023, indicated: 1. The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument User ' 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 · E2025-03-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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 provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a resident ' s needs and choices for personal hygiene - oral care were met for two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2) when, · Yellow thickened substance on the surface of the tongue of Resident 1 and 2. · Resident 1 was observed to have the food from the day before stuck in between her teeth and on her tongue. · Resident 2 was observed to have blue cake that she ate the night before smearing around her mouth. This deficient practice had the potential to adversely affect the resident's psychosocial well-being by not receiving hygiene and feeling dirty. Findings: Resident 1 During a review of Resident 1 ' s medical record, indicated that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility's Loyalton compus on 9/23/24 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer ' s disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities), dementia (a progressive state of decline in…
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 7 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-07 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility ' s nursing staff failed to update and maintain the facilities Antibiotic Steward Program. (Log used to identify, track, and monitor infections and antibiotic use for the residents.) This failure had the potential to result in an inadequate antibiotic stewardship program to identify potential inappropriate antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance. Findings: A review of Resident 2 ' s medical records indicated a urinalysis (UA-test for bacteria in the urine) was ordered on 12/5/24. Laboratory results indicated a culture and sensitivity (C&S- test to determine the type of bacteria and what antibiotic would treat the infection) which showed positive Escherichia coli. (E.coli-bacteria). A review of Resident 3 ' s medical records indicated a UA was ordered on 12/9/24. Laboratory results indicated C&S positive for E.coli. A review of Resident 4 ' s medical records indicated a UA was ordered on 12/10/24. Laboratory results indicated C&S positive for E.coli. A review of Resident 5 ' s medical records indicated a UA was ordered on 12/19/24.…
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 · D2024-08-15 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
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: 1). Maintain the Ice/Water Dispensing machine per manufacturer recommendations allowing a buildup of moist, black residue to collect on the water supply nozzle and; 2). Maintain a functioning drain for the dishwashing machine allowing water to spill out of the drain and onto the floor. These failures had the potential to negatively impact resident health. Findings: 1. A review of the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Cleaning and Sanitizing Ice Machines, revised 7/1/21, indicated, Ice machines will be cleaned and sanitized per manufactures guidelines. During a concurrent observation, interview, and record review, on 8/14/24 at 9:25 AM, located in the resident's kitchenette (a small kitchen), the Ice/Water Dispensing machine was observed with Biomed (BM). A white paper towel was used to wipe the water supply nozzle and a moist, black residue was observed. BM stated, the water supply nozzle should be clean and was not. BM stated, the facility utilized an outside contractor to clean the Ice/Water…
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 · D2024-08-01 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to protect Resident 1 (R1) from abuse when a facility Housekeeper (HK1) took R1's jewelry, posed for pictures wearing R1's jewelry then pawned R1's jewelry. This failure created anxiety and stress for Resident 1 which could lead to adverse clinical outcomes. Findings: R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included heart failure and falling. R1 requires assistance of staff when getting out of bed and for daily needs. R1 is alert and oriented. R1 scored 8 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS Test) indicating decreased mental functioning. On approximately [DATE], R1 noticed her two gold necklaces were missing. R1 remembered placing the two necklaces in a Dixie cup before going to an X-ray department procedure and they were missing after. R1' daughter reported the missing necklaces to the facility. Facility staff began to search for the necklaces. On [DATE] at 11:00 AM during a concurrent interview and 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 · F2024-04-24 · tag F0924 — widespreadPut firmly secured handrails on each side of hallways.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain handrails in the corridors for a 10.5 month period, from June 6, 2023 until April 25, 2024. Finding: During an onsite visit on 4/24-4/26 2024, the surveyor noted that there were sections of the corridors that had no handrails affixed to the corridor walls. In an interview on 4/25 at 2 pm with the Director of Plant Operations, he confirmed that all the handrails were removed on 6/6/2023, as the facility was embarking on a major renovation to the corridor walls. He stated that over the past two weeks, the facility had been replacing the old handrails with the new ones, but the project was not completed yet. He also stated, I was not aware that the regulations require that corridor handrails be in place.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-16 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent abuse for two of seven residents (Residents 1 and 5) when: 1. Resident 2 struck Resident 5 with a cane; 2. Resident 7 grabbed Resident 1's wrist and threatened to hit them. This failure had the potential to threaten the residents' health and well-being and could have caused serious injury. Findings: A facility policy, titled, Abuse Prevention, revised 7/1/22, was reviewed. Its stated purpose was to assure that the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) units were doing all within their control to prevent any abusive occurrences. Prevention included a thorough analysis of the physical environment, staff deployment, and staff supervision in order to meet the needs of the residents. The Skilled Nursing Interdisciplinary Team (IDT-a group of professionals from different disciplines that met to discuss the residents' care) would have identified the residents' needs and behaviors by care planning appropriate interventions and assessed a history…
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 before2022-05-19 · 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 did not ensure safe food handling practices when the cook was observed without wearing a full hair covering while serving lunch meals. This failure had the potential to cause contamination of food leading to residents contracting foodborne illness and undesirable clinical outcomes. Findings: During observation and interview on 05/18/22 at 12:33 PM, with the Kitchen Supervisor (KS) the cook was observed wearing a baseball cap rather than a hair net. The lower third of the cook's, collar length curly hair, was observed to be uncovered. KS was asked about the requirement of having a hair covering. KS acknowledged, Yes, he should get his hair cut or be wearing a hair net. During an interview on 05/18/22 at 12:50PM, the [NAME] was about wearing hair coverings. The [NAME] stated, I know it is getting long but I haven't had a chance to get it cut because of COVID, everywhere is closed. The [NAME] was then observed putting on a hair net. During a concurrent interview and record review on 05/18/22 01:07 PM, the Kitchen Manager…
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 before2022-05-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to make sure that staff wore appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE--which included gloves and gowns) when entering the rooms of 14 residents (Residents 4,6,7,9,13,15,20,21,27,28,30,34,38 and 42) who were COVID-19 (a respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a coronavirus discovered in 2019) exposed, but not infected, after having been in rooms with COVID-19 positive (infected) residents. This failure had the potential to further expose the residents who had tested negative to a risk of infection from COVID-19, which could have led to serious illness. Findings: Review of the facility's COVID-19 Mitigation (to lessen the danger or severity) Plan, approved on 7/8/2020, was reviewed. It was the facility's policy to have designated areas to ensure separation of residents with known positive or suspected COVID-19, and for eliminating movement of healthcare personnel among those spaces to minimize transmission (spread) risk. A document,…
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
$69,450 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $12,438 — penalty dated 2025-07-24
- $19,338 — penalty dated 2025-05-14
- $37,674 — penalty dated 2025-03-20
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| PAIRISH, KATHERINE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 07/01/2018 |
| COPREN, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| JOHNSON, NICOLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| MCGRATH, GAIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2007 |
| SKUTT, JAY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2010 |
| SWANSON, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2014 |
| WEST, HARVEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/01/2016 |
| WHITFIELD, TERESA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 555433. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-24, 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.