San Francisco Towers
1661 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 · Non profit - Corporation · 27 certified beds · (415) 447-5505 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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 (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (13% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
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) | 5 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 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.3% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.5% | 4.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.8% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 7.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.9% | 1.6% | 3.3% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 0.0% | 13.7% | 18.9% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.8% | 4.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.7% | 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 | 36.4% | 12.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.5% | 23.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.2% | 11.2% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
67.3% 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 125 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 78.4% 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 74 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 0.64 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 90% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 67.3%CMS range 61.0–73.5 | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 6.3–14.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 78.4% | 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 | 70.3% | 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 | 78.4% | 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 | 98.9% | 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 | 98.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.1% | 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 | 6.6%CMS range 3.0–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 27 beds and averages 14.9 residents a day — about 55% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 6.88 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.13 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.66 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 6.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.22 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.31 to 1.68 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 13% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-04 · 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 ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when scoops were stored inside the jasmine and brown rice bins with the scoops in direct contact with the rice.This deficient practice may put the residents who receive food from the facility kitchen at risk for food borne illness (an illness caused by the food you eat).During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/1/25 at 10:06 AM with Kitchen Staff (KS) 1, Dry Storage 2 (an area where food items that are safe at room temperature are stored) in the kitchen was inspected. The bin containing jasmine rice had a scoop holder under its lid. The scoop was not in its holder and was placed directly inside the bin, in contact with the rice. The bin containing brown rice did not have a scoop holder, and the scoop was placed directly in contact with the rice. KS 1 confirmed the observation and stated, This one (referring to the brown rice bin) does not have a holder for the scoop. We should change the bin.During an interview…
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 F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform and provide written information to residents to formulate an advanced directive (a legal document indicating resident preference on end-of-life treatment decision) when there was no accurate documentation to demonstrate offering and educating the advance directive to one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 10).This failure was likely to result in not following the residents' desired health care decisions when residents become unable to make decisions for themselves. Review of Resident 10's Acknowledgement for Advance Directive form dated 11/12/25 indicated, a different resident's name was written on the signed form.During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/2/25 at 1:02 PM with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 10's scanned Acknowledgement for Advanced Directive (AAD) form dated 11/12/25 was reviewed. LVN 1 acknowledged that the scanned form on the electronic health record (EHR) was not under Resident 10's name.During a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer that included the reason for transfer, bed-hold policy, and other discharge rights as soon as practicably possible for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 25).This failure has the potential for residents to be inappropriately discharged without understanding the reason for their discharge or their rights regarding that discharge.A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Transfer, Evacuation, Relocation, or Discharge, last revised 08/202, indicated, Emergency Transfer/Discharges.The facility shall make an emergency transfer or discharge when it is in the best interest of the resident.Before the facility transfers a resident to a hospital or the resident goes on a therapeutic leave, the facility will provide written information to the resident or resident representative that specifies: the duration of the state bed-hold policy.the reserve bed payment policy in the state plan. the facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 assessments for one of sixteen sampled residents (Resident 1) was accurate when the Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) for Resident 1's hospice status was coded inaccurately.Failure to complete accurate assessments could potentially harm the residents by not providing needed care and services to maintain their highest level of functioning.Resident 1's most recent admission was on 9/16/25 with diagnosis including Alzheimer's disease (a type of dementia that affects memory, thinking and behavior), dementia (general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disease that occurs when your body doesn't use insulin well and can't keep blood sugar at normal levels), and major depressive disorder.Review of Resident 1's medical record titled Hospice Certification and Plan of Care indicated, Resident 1 was admitted for hospice…
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 F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the indications for pain medication orders were accurately documented for two out of six residents (Resident 19 and Resident 20). This failure had the potential to result in a serious adverse consequence (a bad or harmful effect that can happen when someone takes a medicine).During a review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident 19, dated November 2025, the MAR indicated a pain medication order for Tramadol 25 mg with an indication to, give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. The pain medication order was started on 11/19/2025. Tramadol 25 mg was given at 7:49 AM on 11/21/2025 for a pain level of 3 and was also given at 4:50 AM on 11/24/2025 for a pain level of 2, both of which are considered mild pain according to the facility's pain scale, which did not align with the prescribed indication for moderate to severe pain. Pain levels are a way to describe how much pain someone is feeling and is usually rated on a pain scale from 0 to 10.During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-06-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food safety requirements in accordance with professional standards for food service when: 1. Cleaned baking pans and metal trays were stacked moist and wet. 2. One blender had broken and jagged rim. 3. Opened and undated apricot jelly, mustard, and muffin butter were found in the refrigerator, on the shelf, and the walk-in refrigerator. 4. A kitchen staff was observed carrying clean plates in an unsanitary manner. 5. A kitchen staff did not perform hand washing between tasks. The failure to store cooking and serving utensils and blender; store opened and undated foods; handling eating utensils in a sanitary manner; and practicing proper hand hygiene has the potential of putting residents at risk for foodborne illnesses leading to severe negative health outcomes and even death for 21 residents who consumed food by mouth during mealtimes. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/4/24 at around 10 AM in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 three sampled residents (Resident 69) was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication (drug that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) when there was no specific target behavior monitoring for the use of Lorazepam (medication used to treat anxiety). This failure had the potential for Resident 69 to receive unnecessary psychotropic medication, be exposed to adverse health consequences from the medication, which could negatively impact the resident's mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: Resident 69 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including mesothelioma of pleura (a rare cancer that grows in the membrane that lines the walls of your chest and lungs), major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). During a review of Resident 69's clinical 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 · D2024-06-07 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and appropriately labeled when one unopened and undated Basaglar KwikPen Insulin (hormone medication that helps control blood sugar levels in people with diabetes) for Resident 3 was stored in the medication cart. This failure had the potential for Resident 3 to receive medication with unsafe and reduced potency from improper storage. Findings: During an observation on 6/5/24 at 10:20 AM, one unopened and sealed Basaglar KwikPen Solution Pen Injector 100 Unit/ml Insulin was stored in the medication cart. Review of Resident 3's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 6/2/24 indicated, Basaglar Kwikpen Solution per injector 100 Unit/ml (Insulin Glargine) was last administered on 6/2/24 at 7:00PM. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 11:42 AM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated, Resident 3 always refused to take insulin, that's why the insulin is not yet opened, it is still full. All I know that once taken out from the refrigerator and it's in the cart…
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 before2023-03-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in a sanitary manner when: 1. Three kitchen staff and a maintenance staff failed to wear hair net or head/hair covering when working inside the kitchen. 2. Two flies were found inside the kitchen. 3. The top rack of the wire drying racks had fuzzy, dust like coating on the racks. 4. Two oven mittens had damaged outer covering. 5. A food service staff did not wash his hands when he changed his gloves. 6. A scoop was left inside the thickener container during and after lunch service. These failures had the potential for food contamination and the potential for spread of food borne illnesses. Findings: During kitchen observation on 3/14/23 at 10:12 AM, with the Director of Dining Services A (DDS), the Executive Chef and a Maintenance Worker were observed without hair nets or head covering. On the same day at 11:52 AM, a Kitchen Staff A (KS) was observed without hair net or head covering. These additional observations were made on 3/14/23 from 10:12 AM to 11:52 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 · D2023-03-16 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 garbage containers in the kitchen and the dining area had lids and/or undamaged lids. This failure had the potential for an unsanitary environment and for pests to spread diseases within the facility. Findings: During kitchen observation on 3/14/23 at 10:12 AM, with the Director of Dining Services A (DDS), four garbage containers did not have lids. One garbage container had a lid that was cracked, and one garbage container had a non-functional foot operated lid. During dining service observation on 3/14/23 at 12:34 PM, the garbage container in the skilled nursing facility dining room had spring operate lids that was half opened and could not be closed properly. On 3/16/23, at 10:13 AM, DDS A was interviewed about the garbage containers. DDS A stated he expected all garbage containers to have undamaged and functional lids. Review of the facility's policy titled SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, revised on 1/23, indicated .Food waste and rubbish in the Food and Nutrition Services Department/Dining Services will be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-16 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program when a certified nursing assistant (CNA 1) did not perform hand hygiene (hand washing with soap and water, or cleaning hands with alcohol-based hand sanitizers) before serving food to Resident 16 in the dining room for lunch. This failure had the potential to promote development and spread of communicable diseases and infections in the facility. Findings: During an observation on 3/14/23, at 12:20 PM, in the dining room, CNA 1 did not perform hand hygiene before serving lunch to Resident 16. During an interview on 3/14/23, at 12:24 PM, with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated, Not yet . I have to wash . when asked if he washed his hands before serving the food to Resident 16. After admitting not performing hand hygiene, CNA 1 washed his hand in the sink in the dining room, then approached this surveyor, and stated, I forgot to wash. During an interview on 3/14/23, at 12:28 PM, with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated, Before and after the food . when asked about hand hygiene when serving…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to FRONT PORCH — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.9 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRONT PORCH COMMUNITIES AND SERVICES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 04/01/2022 |
| DURANTEAU, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| FORTE, VINCENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| HANDY, JOANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| JACOBS, LAURA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| KROEKER, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| MCGOVERN, MARION | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| SPENCER, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2026 |
| TONNU, DIEMLAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| WESSON, OLIVER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| WHITTAKER, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/23/2018 |
| KELLY, SEAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/06/2023 |
| SALVADOR, EDUARDO | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| VRANICH, RACHEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/17/2022 |
| AKOPYAN, GEVORK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/12/2022 |
| ARROYO, JENIFFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/04/2020 |
| HAMAN, AISSATOU | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2020 |
| ICHIEN, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/04/2018 |
| MACANGO, SUSAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/04/2026 |
| MCMULLIN, MARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| NITSCHE, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/25/2022 |
| OLSON, KARI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| OMOLE, AKINDELE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/19/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $203K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
What families pay in CA
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the California Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 555728. 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.