Redlands Comm Hosp D/p Snf
350 Terracina Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373 · Non profit - Corporation · 16 certified beds · (909) 335-5644 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.2% | 93.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.5% | 23.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.0% | 11.2% | 12.0% | typical |
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.
69.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 73 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 17.9% 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 78 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 0.97 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 100% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through the weekend. 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 | 69.8%CMS range 59.1–80.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 5.7–15.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 17.9% | 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 | 24.4% | 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 | 11.5% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | 98.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.8%CMS range 2.9–10.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.57 | 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
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. Inspectors cited this home for failing to submit its staffing data to CMS (F0851) — see the citation below; CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-04 · 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 infection control practices when: 1. Resident 4's Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-an infection control guideline that requires staff to wear a gown and gloves while performing high-contact care activities with all residents who are at higher risk of acquiring or spreading infectious diseases) protocol were not followed in accordance with facility's policy and procedure (P&P). 2. One glucose monitoring (a device used to measure the amount of sugar (glucose) in the blood) device was found visibly soiled with dried white substance while docked (recharged) at the nurse's station. These failures had the potential to spread infectious disease (disease caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasite) to 7 medically compromised residents and staff in the facility.Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 4's Record of Admission (contains demographic and medical information), undated, the Record of Admission indicated Resident 4 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the nursing staff provided treatment appropriately for one of seven sampled resident (Resident 18) when the nursing staff did not check Resident 18's blood glucose (sugar) daily as ordered. This failure resulted in Resident 18 inadequately monitored for blood sugar, which had the potential to cause uncontrolled blood sugar and negatively affect Resident 18's health and safety.Findings: During a review of Resident 18's admission Records (contains demographic and medical information), undated, Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included malignant neoplasm of female breast (breast cancer, abnormal cells in the breast grow uncontrollably and form a tumor), metastatic cancer to the spine (cancer cells traveled from the breast and formed new tumors in spine bones), and diabetes mellitus type II (a condition where the body cannot control blood sugar). During an interview on December 1, 2025, at 10:21 AM, with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post facility name, and the total number and the actual hours worked per shift for licensed and unlicensed staff daily. This failure resulted in residents, family, and staff being unable to see if the unit is staffed appropriately.Findings: During a concurrent observation, interview, and record review on December 3, 2025, at 5:51 AM in the Transitional Care Unit (TCU) with the Registered Nurse (RN 1), the in-unit staffing list (a posted list visible to residents, family, and staff, that outlines how many hours all patient care staff classifications are working during a given shift) was posted on a television monitor. The television did not show the facility's name, or the actual hours worked per shift for licensed and unlicensed staff. The RN 1 stated the Direct Hours Per Patient Day (DHPPD)(the average number of hours per day that nursing staff spend providing hands-on care to each resident in a facility) is not posted anywhere in the unit. During a concurrent interview and record review on December 4, 2025,…
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 · D2025-12-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were properly labeled for one of three sampled residents (Resident 7) when the gastrostomy tube (G-Tube-a soft tube placed through the skin directly into the stomach) formula bottle (a bottle premixed medical nutrition formula used for tube feeding to provide calories, proteins and nutrients when a resident cannot eat by mouth is given by the stomach) was not labeled with nurse initials and the water flush bag (a water bag used to deliver scheduled water flushes though the feeding tube to maintain hydration and keep the tube clear) was not labeled with the prescribed rate as required. These failures placed Resident 7 at risk for receiving incorrect formula, improper feeding rates, or inadequate hydration, which potentially resulting in dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, aspiration (chocking), and compromise nutrition. Findings: During a review of Resident 7's Patient Demographics (contains 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 · D2025-12-04 · tag F0851 — isolatedElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the successful electronic submission of complete and accurate direct care staffing information was transmitted to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) for two quarters (May 13, 2025, and August 14, 2025). This failure resulted in the facility not being monitored for any potential staffing issues.Findings: During an interview and record review on December 3, 2025, at 8:55 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the CMS Submission Report (various mandatory reports such as payroll based journal (PBJ) or staffing data based on payroll) for the 2025 quarters were reviewed. The DON stated, The PBJ is supposed to be submitted quarterly. I thought it went through, but it did not due to issues with our system, [Name of Company]. The DON further stated, The PBJ Submission on May 13, 2025, and August 14, 2025, were submitted to CMS but our [Name of Company] we used erased the information because of the wrong code so it was transmitted with no staffing information. The DON further stated, It's important that…
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 · D2024-11-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity in an environment that enhances quality of life for two of five sampled residents (Residents 55 and 56) when lunch was served in a plastic bag with disposable plastic container and utensils and no placemat, tray or plate were provided. This failure resulted in Residents 55 and 56 not having a place to set their food when eating and having to place some items on the table when preparing their meal to eat which had the potential to negatively impact the residents' mental and psycho-social well-being. Findings: 1a. During a review of Resident 55's History and Physical (H&P-contains resident's medical history, physical examination and reason for admission to the facility), the H&P indicated, Resident 55 was admitted on [DATE], for physical therapy (PT-a treatment method where physical methods as massage, heat treatment and exercise are used rather than by drugs or surgery) 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 · D2024-11-08 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
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 the quarterly Resident Assessment Instrument/Minimum Data Set (RAI/MDS- a facility assessment and care planning process used by nursing home staff as required by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS]) was completed and submitted to CMS in accordance with federal submission timeframes, for one of six reviewed for resident assessment (Resident 1). This failure resulted in inadequate monitoring of progress or decline for Resident 1 and the lack of resident specific information to CMS for payment and quality measure monitoring. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P -contains resident's medical history, physical examination and reason for admission to the facility), the H&P indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus ( a disease that causes your blood sugar to be too high), end stage renal disease (ESRD - kidney failure) and osteomyelitis (an…
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 before2024-11-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow policy and procedure (P&P) for four of five residents when: 1. Staff failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration and having direct contact with three residents (Resident 55, 56, and 106). 2. Intravenous (IV-into the vein) tubing was not used according to standards of practice for one resident (Resident 57) when the facilities policy and procedure (P&P) for IV therapy was not updated. These failures had the potential to place patients at a greater risk for spreading of infection from cross-contamination (the transfer of harmful bacteria) causing a preventable bloodstream infection, and negatively impact residents' health and safety. Findings: 1a. During a review of Resident 106's Admitting Form (a demographic data about the resident), the Admitting Form indicated, Resident 106 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], for physical therapy (PT-a treatment method where physical methods as massage, heat treatment 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 · F2023-11-16 · 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 maintain a sanitary kitchen in accordance with professional standards for food safety when: 1. In the kitchen entrance, there was no available hair restraints (such as hair nets and beard restraints) for kitchen staff and visitors to use. 2. Three kitchen staff, who had beards, were not wearing beard restraints while working inside the kitchen. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses to 8 medically compromised residents who receive food served by the kitchen. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview, on November 13, 2023, at 8:29 AM, with the Kitchen Manager (Manager 1), the kitchen entrance was inspected. There was no available hair nets and beard restraints for staff and visitors to use upon entering the kitchen. The Manager 1 acknowledged the findings, and stated hair nets and beard restraints should be easily accessible near the kitchen entrance door. During a concurrent observation and interview, on November 13, 2023, at 9:20 AM, with the Associate Chef (Chef 1), 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALEJANDRE, THEODORE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2018 |
| BEEMER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2011 |
| CONTRERAS, YOLANDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2010 |
| EMMERSON, WILLILAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/04/2024 |
| HATFIELD, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2001 |
| HODGES, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/1997 |
| HUYNH, KLEMENS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| JONES, WALTER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/04/2024 |
| MARTINEZ, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2021 |
| MCBRIDE, GARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/06/2023 |
| RACADIO, SAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2012 |
| SALVESEN, KATHLEEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2005 |
| SNODGRESS, CAROL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2013 |
| STANGE, DELLA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/02/2023 |
| UMEDA, ALVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2006 |
| WANER, NEAL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2017 |
| WEISSER, STANLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2002 |
| HOLMES, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/1988 |
| MOK, MICHELLE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2015 |
| SEXTON, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| THUNELL, ADAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/12/2026 |
| VOLSCH, JOYCE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/13/2022 |
| ZIRKLE, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| REDLANDS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/30/1995 |
| PAI, SHANTHARAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 40 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 555642. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-04, 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.