No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Hayes Convalescent Hospital

1250 Hayes Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 34 certified beds · (415) 931-8806 Medicaid only — no Medicare

Call the home — (415) 931-8806 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0604) — cited Dec 2024
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • 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
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • 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

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
557 Waller St · (415) 814-2442 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1750 Fulton St · (415) 923-6411 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
550 Divisadero St · (415) 551-7900 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased26.9%10.2%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.1%4.0%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.4%0.8%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.9%1.2%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.1%7.3%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.4%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.9%1.6%3.3%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened14.8%9.8%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication0.0%13.7%18.9%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.3%4.3%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control13.6%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 table5.4%12.0%17.1%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.

Staffing

0.72
RN hours/ resident / day
0.46
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.81
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.00
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.81
RN hoursweekends
44.1%
Total nursing turnover
40.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 34 beds and averages 29.6 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 4 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.81 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 3.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.05 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.81 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as 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

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-11-07)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2024-12-12)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · F2024-12-12 · tag F0813 — widespread
    Have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
    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 safe and sanitary storage of foods brought to residents by family when the foods are stored in a communal refrigerator, comingled with staff lunch bags, not labeled, and not placed in a re-sealable container with tightly fitting lids. This failure had the potential to cause food borne illness when stored food are served to residents. FINDINGS: During concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 12:13 p.m., in the breakroom with DS (Dietary Supervisor), the refrigerator that family members store food brought from outside the facility and also used for staff to store their food was observed to have plastic grocery bags containing food items, brown paper bag with food items inside, unlabeled opened milk carton of Kerns Milk and [NAME] Drink, unlabeled opened liquid coffee creamer, 1 apple, one small individual container of pudding, one small individual container of jello, a plastic container of food item unlabeled. The label outside refrigerator did not specify or designate space/storage for…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure 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 follow their policy regarding restraints for two of 12 sample residents (Resident 8 and 18). For Resident 18 the facility failed to assess her restraint on a regular basis for restraint reduction and/or elimination. For Resident 8 the facility failed to obtain consent from the responsible party and a Physician order. Failure to follow their restraint policy did not ensure Resident 8 and 18 were free from restraints. Findings: Review of Resident 18's MDS (Minimum Data Set, a standardized resident assessment tool) dated 9/14/24 indicated: 1. She was severely impaired in her cognition. 2. She had no impairment in range of motion for her upper and lower extremities. 3. She used a walker as a mobility device. 4. she required set up for meals and was dependent on staff for all other ADLs (activity of daily living). 5. She exhibited behaviors not directed towards other (screaming, disruptive sounds, hitting or scratching self, etc.). Observation…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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 follow their policy regarding care planning restraints for two of 12 sample residents (Resident 8 and 18). The facility failed to address these issues in Resident 18's care plan: 1. assess her restraint on a regular basis for restraint reduction and/or elimination. 2. Formulate interventions for restraint reduction and/or elimination. For Resident 8 the facility failed to formulate a restraint care plan for her side rails. Failure to follow facility policy regarding care planning restraints did not ensure Resident 8 and 18 were free from restraints. Findings: Review of Resident 18's MDS dated [DATE] indicated: 1. She was severely impaired in her cognition. 2. She had no impairment in range of motion for her upper and lower extremities. 3. She used a walker as a mobility device. 4. she required set up for meals and was dependent on staff for all other ADLs 5. She exhibited behaviors not directed towards other (screaming, disruptive sounds,…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-12 · tag F0552 — isolated
    Ensure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
    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 Resident 18 (R18) had a signed informed consent form before receiving an antipsychotic medication, Citalopram. This failure has the potential to harm the resident while taking the medication without knowing the harm or side effects associated with this type of medication. Findings: The clinical record of Resident 18 was reviewed. The Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 09/03/2023 indicated, R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Hypertension (High blood pressure), Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD, acid reflux), Viral Hepatitis, (infection that causes liver inflammation and damage), Thyroid disorder (a disease in the thyroid gland), Arthritis (a condition that affects bone joints), Alzheimer's Disease (brain disorder affecting a person's ability to function), Asthma, Cataracts, Diverticulosis (condition in which small bulging pouches develop in the digestive tract). Resident 18 had…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-12 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a current copy of a resident's advance directive was in the resident's medical record for Resident 10 (R10). This failure could result in the Resident or her representative's inability to make decisions regarding her health care and related treatment choices. Findings: The clinical record of R10 was reviewed. The Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 08/03/2023, indicated Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hypertension (High blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus (High blood Sugar), Hyperlipidemia (High Cholesterol), Depression (a mood disorder), Osteoarthritis (disease that affects joints). R10's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 04 (severely impaired). During observation on 10/09/23 at 8:45 AM, R10 looked clean, in good spirit, communicated and her environment looked clean and homelike. During a concurrent interview R10 communicated a little bit but stated 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 provide adequate supervision as per physician's orders for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 22) when staff removed the tabletop tray from Resident 22's Geri chair (recliner chair with tray top). This failure resulted in Resident 22 falling to the floor from her Geri chair on 6/30/23. Findings: Review of Resident 22's clinical records indicated Resident 22 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance (loss of brain function with changes in behavior), delusional disorders (having beliefs not based on reality) and hypertensive heart disease with heart failure (heart muscle not pumping effectively). During observation on 10/9/23 at 9:05 AM, Resident 22 was observed sitting in a Geri chair, calling out for help. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/10/23 at 1:42 PM, the DON confirmed the fall happened on 6/30/23 at 11:00 PM during night shift. The DON reported 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
    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 act upon the Pharmacist Consultant's (PC) recommendations: A) to change the timing of administration of Omeprazole (a medication that decreases the amount of acid produced by the stomach) to be given before all other medications and before food, for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 22). B) when there was no monitoring of target behavior for the use of Mirtazapine (an antidepressant) for one of 12 sampled Residents (Resident 21). These failures placed Resident 22 at risk for harm due to possible decreased therapeutic effects of Omeprazole and the potential of inadequate monitoring for effectiveness and potential side effects of Mirtazapine for Resident 21. Findings: A. Review of Resident 22's clinical records indicated Resident 22 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance (loss of brain function with changes in behavior), delusional disorders (having beliefs not based in reality) 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-12 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 12 sampled residents' (Resident 9) drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs when Resident 9 was not monitored for signs and symptoms of bleeding/bruising and thromboembolism (a circulating blood clot that gets stuck and causes an obstruction) for the use of Clopidogrel (a medication used to prevent blood clot). This failure placed Resident 9 at risk for experiencing unidentified side effects of the medication. Findings: Review of Resident 9's admission Record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease (a disorder that causes the blood vessels outside of the heart and brain to narrow, spasm, or block blood circulation), thrombocytopenia [low blood platelet (a blood component that controls bleeding) count], and spontaneous ecchymoses (discoloration of the skin due to the rupture of the blood vessels below the surface of the skin). During a review of Resident 9's clinical records with 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-12 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    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 medication administration error rate was less than five percent (5%) when two medication errors occurred out of 32 opportunities, resulting in an error rate of 6.25%: 1. Resident 12 was ordered Aspirin EC (enteric coated - a special coating that prevents release and absorption of the medication contents until they reach the intestine) 81 mg (milligrams, a unit of measure) but was given chewable Aspirin 81 mg. 2. Resident 12 was administered two different eye drops with one minute interval. This resulted in medications not given according to the prescriber's order and had the potential for Resident 12 to not receive the full therapeutic effect of the medications. Findings: 1. During medication administration observation on 10/11/23 at 8:21 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 administered crushed chewable Aspirin 81 mg tablet mixed in applesauce to Resident 12. During a concurrent interview and review on 10/11/23 at 10:01 AM with LVN 2, Resident 12's physician's order (PO) and Medication…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 infection control and prevention program when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 did not wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE - equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses) while inside the room of one of one sampled resident (Resident 80) who was on isolation for COVID-19 infection (a highly contagious viral infection). This failure had the potential for spread of COVID-19 infection among residents, staff, and visitors. Findings: Review of Resident 80 's admission Record, indicated she was admitted on [DATE]. Review of the facility document, titled COVID-19 Outbreak Surveillance (9/29/2023), indicated Resident 80 tested positive for COVID-19 on 9/29/23. During an observation on 10/9/23 at 8:55 AM, Resident 80's room door had a signage indicating gloves, gown, eye protection, and N-95 respirator (a protective device designed to achieve a very close facial…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
Ownership Data Not Available

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

Paying with Medicaid

CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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.

Typical monthly cost in California
$12,167/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$15,178/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,000/mo
Assisted living

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 05A315. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-07, 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.

What to do next