Alameda County Medical Center D/P SNF
15400 Foothill Boulevard, San Leandro, CA 94578 · Government - Hospital district · 109 certified beds · (510) 895-4279 Medicare & Medicaid certified
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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (7% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 | 9.6% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.3% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| 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 | 2.5% | 1.6% | 3.3% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.4% | 9.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 3.6% | 13.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.4% | 4.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.9% | 10.2% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.3% | 12.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.53 | 2.25 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.71 | 1.57 | 1.80 | typical |
* 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 11% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 5.8–16.1 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.72 | 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 109 beds and averages 107.2 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 6.40 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.26 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.77 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 5.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.58 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.36 to 1.04 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 7% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2024-08-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 106 of 106 residents had food prepared and stored in a safe and sanitary manner when: 1. frozen raw tilapia and frozen raw shrimp was stored above ready to eat chicken enchiladas and bean and cheese pupusas. 2. a dispensing scoop was stored in panko breadcrumbs. 3. staff did not perform hand hygiene when their hands were contaminated by picking up a clipboard which fell on the floor. These failures placed the facility's 106 residents who received food from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illness. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/19/24, at 10:27 a.m., with Director of Food and Nutrition Services (DFNS) and Registered Dietitian 1 (RD 1), the freezer containing protein products was inspected. One opened box of frozen raw tilapia, one opened box of frozen raw shrimp and one closed box of frozen raw shrimp was found on the shelving above an open box of ready-to-eat chicken enchiladas, two unopened boxes of ready-to-eat chicken enchiladas and three closed boxes of ready-to-eat…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-22 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure safe practices on storage and handling of the hazardous medications (or HD, Drugs that pose short- or long-term harm upon exposure to human via skin or inhalation) in three out of six medication carts with resident census of 106 based on CDC's (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency leading the science-based, data-driven, service organization that protects the public's health) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH a federal agency that is part of the CDC; NIOSH conducts research and makes recommendations for the prevention of work-related hazards, injury and illness) guidelines. The unsafe storage and handling of hazardous medications could pose health risk to staff and residents. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview with Licensed Nurse 2 (LN 2), on 8/19/24, at 10:40 AM, in the facility's B2 unit, the Medication Cart 2 stored multiple medications labeled by pharmacy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-22 · 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 safe use of antibiotic eye medication called erythromycin ophthalmic (eye) ointment (ointment a smooth oily preparation mixed with antibiotic to treat eye infection) for ongoing long-term use in one out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication (Resident 36). This unsafe practice could contribute to ineffective use of antibiotic for an unapproved indication and risk of antibiotic becoming ineffective with long term use. Findings: During a record review of Resident 36's electronic medical record, titled MAR Report (MAR stands for Medication Administration Record; a document used by nursing staff to document orders carried out based on doctor's order), dated 8/21/24, the record indicated an order for eye medication called erythromycin as follow: erythromycin (Romycin, another name for antibiotic) 5 mg/gm (0.5%) [mg stands for milligram and gm stands for gram as measure of weight, and % stand for percent as measure of potency] ophthalmic ointment: Freq (Frequency of use) 2 times daily; Route: Both eyes;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-22 · 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 safe storage practices for medications and medical supplies stored in medication carts, treatment cart and refrigerators with census of 106 when: 1. Medication Cart 2 in Unit B2 stored undated inhalation medication called Ipratropium/Albuterol (or DuoNeb, an inhalation solution used to treat breathing problems) and opened packets of a skin patch called lidocaine topical system (or Ztlido, a numbing agent used to treat pain). 2. Medication refrigerator in Unit B2 medication room stored unlabeled prescription medication called CathFlo (or alteplase, medication used to unclog Intravenous (IV, into the Vein) line by dissolving the blood clots) and two boxes of suppositories (drug inserted in rectum) called bisacodyl (a bowel laxative) and acetaminophen (pain drug) that did not require refrigeration based on manufacturer recommendation. 3. Treatment Cart in Unit B4 stored unlabeled prescription drugs called Santyl (a topical product used…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-22 · 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 ensure staff followed policies and procedures designed to prevent infection in two out of 12 residents observed for medication administration observation and blood sugar testing (Resident 81 and Resident 407) when: 1. For one of 12 residents (Resident 81), Licensed Nurse 1 (LN 1) failed to clean the pill cutter (an instrument used to cut pills to provide an accurate dose) before and after use or practice hand hygiene. 2. For two of 12 residents (Resident 81 and Resident 407), Licensed Nurse 1 (LN 1) failed to clean the blood glucometer (instrument to check the level of sugar in the blood: blood glucose) in between resident use based on standards of practice and facility's policy. These failures had the potential to cause infection or spread infection in the facility. Findings: 1. During an observation on 8/20/24, at 11:30 AM, Resident 81 required a pain medication called hydromorphone (or Dilaudid, an opioid pain medication) in 2mg dosage in pill form (mg is milligram, a unit of measure). LN 1 retrieved a 4…
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 · E2023-07-28 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure the facility had a medication error rate of less than 5 percent when nursing staff failed to follow physician orders for administration of medication for two of eight sampled residents (Resident 89 and Resident 231) during medication pass: Resident 89 did not receive an ordered blood test before meals and Resident 231 did not receive the correct dosage of medication during medication pass. The failure to follow medication administration instructions during two of 28 opportunities of medication administration resulted in an error rate of 7.1 percent. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 89's Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool to direct care), dated 7/24/23, the MDS indicated Resident 89 had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (the body's inadequate production of the hormone insulin results in high blood sugar levels causing excessive urination and damage to body organs). The MDS also indicated Resident 89 received 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 · Ecited before2023-07-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
2. A review of Resident 83's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide care), dated 6/15/23, indicated Resident 83 had a diagnosis of dementia (memory loss). A review of Resident 83's Physician Order, dated 7/13/23, indicated, Cleanse Sacral (the spinal area between the lower back and tailbone) wound with normal saline (NS, used to clean wounds), pat dry .Pack loosely with plain packing strip (thin strips of material used to fill deep pockets in wounds), adding wound gel (ointment for the wound). Cover with Mepilex (bordered foam dressing that is moisture-proof and bacteria-proof) dressing . During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/27/23, at 11:15 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1), in Resident 83's room, LVN 1 completed Resident 83's wound care. LVN 1 opened Resident 83's bedside nightstand bottom drawer and placed the newly sanitized scissors inside the drawer. The bottom drawer also contained a box with several sealed gauze dressings, an opened bottle of plain packing strips, and a roll of paper tape. LVN 1 stated she stored Resident 83's wound…
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 before2023-07-28 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 22 sampled residents (Resident 72) was treated with dignity and respect when a Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) failed to provide visual privacy during provision of care for ADLs (activities of daily living such as personal hygiene, bathing, dressing, toileting). The failure to fully enclose Resident 72's bed by use of the privacy curtain had the potential to result in public exposure of Resident 72's body during provision of care and cause emotional distress. Findings: A review of Resident 72's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide care), dated 6/9/23, the MDS indicated Resident 72 was totally dependent on the assistance of one staff person for ADLs. The MDS indicated Resident 72's vision was severely impaired (no vision or sees only light, colors or shapes; eyes do not appear to follow objects), was sometimes able to make himself understood, and sometimes able to understand others. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/24/23, at 10:50 a.m., with Certified…
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 · E2019-09-26 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not provide competency training to provide services for dialysis-dependent (dialysis - a process where a machine filters the blood of wastes when the kidneys are not healthy enough to do it) residents in accordance with the facility assessment. This failure had the potential to result in dialysis-dependent residents receiving inappropriate care and services. Findings: Review of the Facility Assessment last reviewed 7/12/19 indicated the average number of residents on special treatments and conditions included 6-10 residents who were on hemodialysis (also known as dialysis). Staff training/education and competencies needed to provide level of requirements were also included in the facility assessment. The nursing staff skill sets that were evaluated annually included specialized care such as dialysis. During an interview and concurrent review of competency trainings with Clinical Instructor (CI) on 9/26/19 at 10:36 a.m., CI stated she had just started work in June 2019 and has not given competency training on dialysis care 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 · E2019-09-26 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement 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
Based on interview and record review, for one of 24 (Resident 65) sampled residents, the facility failed to consistently monitor Resident 65's behaviors and side effects related to the use of psychotropic (capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behaviors) medications during the months of July 2019, August 2019, and September 2019. For Resident 65, this deficient practice had the potential to result in the physician receiving and using inaccurate information to make decisions regarding the need to continue, increase, or decrease of the use of psychotropic medications. Findings: Review of Resident 65's Face Sheet indicated Resident 65 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Traumatic Brain Injury Assault (an injury to the brain caused by an impact such as a road traffic incident, assault, or fall). Review of Resident 65's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool used to direct care), dated 7/16/19, indicated Resident 65 had diagnoses that included a severe chronic mental disorder and depression. Review of Resident 65's Physician Orders (PO) indicated Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 8 citations
- Potential for harm · E2019-09-26 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, for two of 27 sampled residents (Residents 49 and 76 and 94), the facility failed to ensure Residents 49 and 76 were free of significant medication errors when: 1. Resident 49 did not receive Renvela (a phosphate binder medication that prevents the absorption of phosphorus in the blood) as ordered by the physician, and; 2. Resident 76 did not receive Renagel (a type of phosphate binder) and Lomotil (medication to treat diarrhea) as ordered by the physician. For Residents 49 and 76, this failure had the potential to result in increased phosphorus levels adverse effects (e.g. body changes that pull calcium out of your bones, making them weak). For Resident 76, this failure had the potential to result in dehydration. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 49's nutrition care plan, last reviewed 9/12/19, indicated the goal was for Resident 49 to have blood phosphorus (a mineral) level between 3 - 5.5 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL). One of the approaches was for licensed nurses to give medications as ordered. Review of Resident 49's physician'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 · Ecited before2019-09-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, for two of four sampled residents (Residents 104 and 107) the facility failed to implement their infection prevention and control policy and procedures when: 1. Resident 104's indwelling catheter uncovered drainage bag was touching the floor, and; 2. Registered Nurse (RN) 3 did not perform hand hygiene (general term that applies to hand washing, antiseptic hand wash, and alcohol-based hand rub) hands between glove changes and touched clean gauze with bloody gloves. For Residents 104 and 107, these deficient practices had the potential to result in the spread of infection. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 104's Physician Orders, dated 5/24/19, indicated Resident 104 had a condom catheter related to his diagnoses of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (enlarged prostate) and urine retention. During an observation on 9/24/19, at 8:22 a.m., Resident 104's uncovered urinary catheter drainage bag was touching the floor. In an interview on 9/24/19, at 8:22 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 stated urinary catheter drainage bag should not…
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 before2019-09-26 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of four sampled residents (Residents 36 and Resident 104) were treated with dignity and respect when: 1. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 7 entered Resident 36's room without knocking and/or without permission. This failure resulted in Resident 36 feeling mad that his privacy was not respected. 2. Resident 104's urinary catheter (small flexible tube inserted through the urethra and into the bladder to drain urine) drainage bag was not covered by a urinary catheter drainage bag cover. For Resident 104, this failure had the potential to result in the loss of dignity. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 36's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool used to guide care), dated 3/6/19, indicated Resident 36 was totally dependent on the assistance of one or two staff persons for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs - e.g. turning in bed, dressing, eating, personal hygiene). The MDS also indicated Resident 36's Brief Interview for mental status was 15 (indicated he was able to recall words, repeat words 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 · D2019-09-26 · 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
Based on interview and record review, for one of 27 (Resident 51) sampled residents, the facility failed to inquire about Advance Directive (a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity) from Resident 51 and/or their representative. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 51 not receiving care in accordance with his wishes. Findings: Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool used to guide care), dated 6/21/19, indicated Resident 51's Brief Interview for mental status was 15 (indicated he was able to recall words, repeat words and knew the correct year, date and month). During a review of the medical record for Resident 51, the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form, signed 7/29/19, indicated Section D - Information and Signatures regarding Advance Directives was left unanswered. Review of Resident 51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool used to direct care), dated 6/21/19,…
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 · D2019-09-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, for one (Resident 94) of 27 sampled residents, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans to address medical and nursing needs of the residents when there was no comprehensive care plan to address indwelling catheter. This failure had the potential to result in delayed or unrecognized catheter related adverse affects. Findings: Review of the Resident Face Sheet, not dated, indicated Resident 94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool used to guide care), dated 5/18/19, indicated Resident 94 had an indwelling urinary catheter (a flexible tube that is inserted into the bladder to drain urine). Review of Resident 94's physician's orders, dated 9/26/19, indicated Resident 94 had an order for a suprapubic catheter. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 9/25/19 at 12:08 p.m., ADON stated she could not find in Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2019-09-26 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 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 complete comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments (MDS - an assessment tool used to guide care) for five of 27 sampled residents (Residents 259, 260, 25, 17, and 9) within the regulatory specified timeframes when: 1. the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) did not complete the admission MDS assessment for Resident 259 and 260 within 14 calendar days of their respective admission to the facility. 2. the MDSC did not complete the annual MDS for Resident 25, 17, 21, and 9 within 12 months of their respective previous annual MDSs. This deficient practice had the potential to delay care planning for Residents 259, 260, 25, 17, and 9. Findings: 1. Review of the Resident 259's Face Sheet, printed 9/24/19, indicated Resident 259 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 259's MDS record, indicated Resident 259's admission MDS had a reference date of 7/22/19, and the MDS was not completed within 14 calendar days of Resident 259's admission 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.
- No harm found · B2019-09-26 · tag F0637 — patternAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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, for one (Residents 27) of 27 sampled residents the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to guide care) Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA - major decline or improvement in a resident's status) was done within 14 days after it was determined. Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) completed Resident 27's SCSA 64 days after it was due. This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 27 not receiving care based on their current health status. Findings: Review of Resident 27's Face Sheet, printed 9/20/19, indicated Resident 27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview on 9/26/19, at 8:30 a.m., MDSC stated Resident 27's SCSA was completed late because she had to facilitate care conferences and review charts before care conferences occurred. MDSC stated Resident 27's SCSA could not be completed until after the care conference had occurred. MDSC stated it was too much work, not enough time 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.
- No harm found · B2019-09-26 · tag F0638 — patternAssure 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, for 13 of 27 (Resident 2, 4, 7, 10, 8, 14, 6, 22, 1, 12, 18, 15, and 77) sampled residents, the facility failed to complete Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment too used to direct care) Assessments in the regulatory specified manner. This failure had the potential for Residents 2, 4, 7, 10, 8, 14, 6, 22, 1, 12, 18, 15, and 77 to not receive care and services needed based on their current health status. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 2's the Face Sheet, printed 9/26/19, indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 2's Quarterly MDS assessment indicated it was due on 7/2/19 and completed on 9/24/19 (84 days late). 2. Review of Resident 4's the Face Sheet, printed 9/26/19, indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 4's Quarterly MDS assessment indicated it was due on 7/10/19 and completed on 9/24/19 (76 days late). 3. Review of Resident 7's Face Sheet, printed 9/26/19, indicated Resident 7 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/1998 |
| JOHNSON, SHARI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/20/2025 |
| SHARMA, NAINI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| ESPINOZA, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/08/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 4 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.
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 056479. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-22, 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.