Vacaville Ranch Post Acute
101 S Orchard Ave, Vacaville, CA 95688 · For profit - Corporation · 87 certified beds · (707) 448-6458 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited May 2024
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $127,689 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-20)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-03 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 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 | 3.0% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.6% | 7.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.5% | 1.6% | 3.3% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 0.0% | 9.8% | 16.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.1% | 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 | 5.3% | 4.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.5% | 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 | 11.0% | 12.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.4% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.2% | 23.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.5% | 11.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.01 | 2.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.51 | 1.57 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
51.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 217 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 32.5% 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 123 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 42% 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 | 51.4%CMS range 45.0–57.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.5%CMS range 10.8–18.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 32.5% | 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 | 35.8% | 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 | 35.8% | 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 | 99.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 96.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.2% | 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 | 4.9% | 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 | 8.6%CMS range 5.8–11.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 87 beds and averages 68.7 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.51 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.80 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.74 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above 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.
19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-08-08 · 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 store, prepare, and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when:1. Several metal sheet pans in clean and ready-to-use storage areas:a. Were stacked wet while stored awayb. Had food debris and brown substance on outside surface; 2. There were opened bags of food items in dry storage, refrigerator, and freezer with issues:a. 12 opened bottles of spices did not have a use by dateb. One opened bin of chicken soup base did not have a use by date c .One opened loaf of bread did not have a use by dated. Four pallets of bread did not have a receive date e. One package of thawed country fried steak did not have a pull datef. One opened box of frozen beef patties did not have an open or use by dateg .One opened package of frozen cookie dough had an illegible open and use by date 3. The ice machine was not clean; and, 4. The concentration of the sanitizer solution for the sanitation (red) bucket was not in range. These failures had potential to cause food-borne illness in 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 · F2025-08-08 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper disposal of garbage for a census of 47, when garbage dumpsters were left uncovered. This failure had the potential to expose the facility to pests, disease, and odors.Findings:During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/6/25 at 8:43 a.m., with Dietary Manager (DM), two facility garbage dumpsters did not have a lid on and were open. DM confirmed the lids were open and should have been closed.During an interview on 8/7/25 at 1:41 p.m. with Registered Dietician (RD), RD stated the expectation was for the dumpster garbage lids to be closed. RD further stated there was a risk for contamination in the facility when the dumpster garbage lids were left open.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Garbage and Trashcans revised 05/20/2020, the P&P indicated, .All food waste must be placed in covered garbage and trashcans.the dumpster area must be free of debris.and the lid must be closed.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-08 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor 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 ensure 14 of 17 sampled residents (Resident 16, Resident 30, Resident 32, Resident 37, Resident 43, Resident 60, Resident 4, Resident 57, Resident 58, Resident 59, Resident 2, Resident 6, Resident 9, and Resident 29) were offered an advance directive (a legal document where a competent adult specifies their future medical care wishes in the event they cannot communicate them themselves, often due to illness or injury).This failure had the potential to result in the residents' medical wishes not being honored.Findings: During a record review of Resident 16's admission Record (AR), Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction (a condition where the blood flow to the parts of the brain is blocked, causing tissue damage to the brain), Unspecified dementia (a condition characterized by a progressive decline in cognitive functions, such as memory, thinking, language, judgment, and behavior). During a record review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-08 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 that the menu was followed for the therapeutic diet for lunch on 8/6/25 when:1. 12 residents (Resident 5, Resident 6, Resident 9, Resident 15, Resident 18, Resident 21, Resident 29, Resident 31, Resident 35, Resident 39, Resident 41, and Resident 48) who were on a Mechanical Soft/Soft and Bite sized diet (a diet for people with mild to moderate chewing and/or swallowing difficulty) received whole green beans instead of soft and chopped green beans and hard bread instead of soft and buttered bread as indicated on the menu; and,2. Four residents (Resident 16, Resident 30, Resident 40, and Resident 57) who were on a Pureed diet (a diet for people with trouble chewing, swallowing, or fully breaking down food and usually ground, pressed, or strained to pudding like consistency) received 2.07 oz (ounces -unit of measure) serving of garlic bread instead of 2.78 oz serving of garlic bread as indicated on the menu.These failures had the potential to result in compromising the medical and nutrition status of 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 · Ecited before2025-08-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to follow guidelines for Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP, an infection prevention and control intervention and guidance on what and how to properly wear the PPE, [personal protective equipment]) to reduce transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms) that utilize the use of gowns and gloves during direct care activities for three of 17 sampled residents (Resident 4, Resident 43 and Resident 29) when:1. Licensed Nurse (LN) 3 and Infection Preventionist (IP) did not wear gowns and gloves when they turned Resident 4 to her side;2. Physical Therapy (PT) staff did not wear a gown and gloves when he brought Resident 43 to the gym and back to her room; and,3. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 and Physical Therapy staff did not wear gowns and gloves with Resident 29.These failures had the potential to spread multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO's, bacteria that resist treatment with more than one antibiotic) among residents, staff and visitors.…
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 · D2025-08-08 · 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 ensure a written notice of bed-hold at the time of transfer was provided for two of 17 sampled residents (Resident 54 and Resident 6).This failure resulted in Resident 6 and Resident 54 not being fully informed about bed-hold options and rights.Findings: During a review of admission Record (AR) indicated, Resident 54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including Heart Failure (heart failure – the heart is unable to pump blood around the body properly.) A concurrent record review and interview on 8/8/25 at 11:12 a.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed that there was no documented evidence Resident 54 received a document related to the facility's bed hold policy prior to her transfer to the hospital. During an interview on 8/8/25 at 1:49 p.m. with Social Services Director (SSD), the SSD stated, “admission packet has the bed hold policy, but the facility does not provide bed hold policy upon transfer.” The SSD further…
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 · D2025-08-08 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 care received for two of 17 sampled residents (Resident 58 and Resident 29) met professional standards, when:1) Nursing staff did not notify the physician of Resident 58's fluid imbalance; and2) Nursing staff did not document Resident 29's left heel wound accurately and completely. These failures had the potential to result in Resident 58 having fluid overload, electrolyte imbalance, or urinary retention and Resident 29's left heel to worsen. Findings: 1) During a review of Resident 58's admission record (AR), the AR indicated Resident 58 was admitted to the facility in August 2025 with multiple diagnosis including atherosclerotic heart disease (the buildup of fats, cholesterol and other substances in and on the artery walls). During a review of Resident 58's physician orders, dated 8/5/25, the physician orders indicated Resident 58 had a foley catheter (a flexible, sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) due to urinary retention (the inability to completely empty the bladder). 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 · Dcited before2025-08-08 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure discharged /discontinued controlled medications (substances that have the potential for abuse and addiction and are therefore regulated by law) were jointly counted by the outgoing nurse and an oncoming nurse. This failure had the potential for diversion (obtain or use of prescription medicines such as controlled medications illegally), medication errors, and/or misuse of controlled medications in the facility.During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/5/25 at 10:45 a.m. with Licensed Nurse (LN) 2 of medication carts for A hall and part of B hall, LN 2 unlocked the narcotic box that contained active (active means, in-patient narcotic medications) and discharged /discontinued narcotic medications. LN 2 stated, the outgoing night shift nurse and herself counted the active narcotic medications but did not count the discharged /discontinued narcotic medications. Observed, bubble pack (unit dose packaging, to organize medications into individual doses, typically sealed in compartments with protective…
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 before2024-12-13 · 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure: 1.Food items inside the refrigerator in the facility kitchen were labeled, open dated and had a use by date. These failures could lead to misidentification of food item and a potential for food borne illness (food poisoning) from consuming expired or spoiled items. 2.The utensils were stored in a sanitary condition when the drawers where utensils were stored were dirty with food crumbs and other residue from preparing food. This failure could result to cross contamination and the spread of bacteria. 3.A contaminated food item was not discarded properly. This failure could lead to consumption of unsafe food, diseases, and food borne illnesses. Findings: 1.During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/24 at 10:35 a.m., and 10:41 a.m., respectively, [NAME] 1 verified in refrigerator #1 the following items with no label and with no open and use-by-date (UBD): -sliced tomatoes -sliced meat in a clear plastic bag -cut up meat in a blue plastic bag - opened packaging containing hash browns that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-13 · 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 upon observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to remove two expired multi-dose vials of Tuberculin skin test solution (used to test for tuberculosis (TB), which is an airborne bacterial infection that primarily affects the lungs) with expired dates from use. Failure to remove the opened, expired vials of Tuberculin skin test solution decreased the facility's potential to safely administer medication and ensure residents benefitted from the full effects of the medications. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24, at 11:30 a.m., with Licensed Staff A, two multi-dose vials of Tuberculin skin test solution (Vial 1 one labeled with an opened date of 11/5/24, and an expired date of 12/5/24; and Vial 2 labeled with an opened date of 10/30/24, and an expired date of 11/30/24) were observed in the Medication Storage Room Refrigerator. Licensed Staff A stated, These vials were expired and should have been discarded. Review of the drug information on Tubersol (a prescription drug used to test for the presence of TB), via the National…
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 9 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-13 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 food was appetizing and palatable for three out of three sampled residents (Residents 42, 33, and 208). This failure put the residents at risk for decreased food intake and decline in their nutritional status. Findings: A review of Resident 42's face sheet (demographics) indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses of Type II Diabetes Mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), Chronic Pain Syndrome (CPS, persistent pain that last longer than 3 months) and Anemia (a condition where the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells). Resident 42's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a short cognitive screening test used to assess a patient's mental status) score dated 11/1/24 was 14 over 15 indicating intact cognition (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses). A review of Resident 33'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 before2024-07-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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 provide prescribed medications, as ordered, for two of two sampled residents (Residents 153 and Resident 208), when: 1. Resident 153's Spiriva (an inhaled medication used to treat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) was unavailable in the facility for four days; and, 2. Nine of nine scheduled medications (medications to be administered at a specific time) for Resident 208 were administered one hour and forty-five minutes past the scheduled administration time. These failures resulted in: 1. Resident 153 feeling anxious and increased the potential for an exacerbation of her chronic respiratory disease, which may have led to breathing difficulties, increased coughing, fatigue, and trouble sleeping or doing daily activities. 2. The potential to cause discomfort and/or jeopardize the health and safety of Resident 208. Findings: 1. During an interview on 7/8/24 at 3:48 p.m., Resident 153 stated she took inhaler medications at home. A review…
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 · E2024-07-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the attending Physician failed to document that he or she reviewed the Pharmacist's findings and/or failed to document the action taken or not taken to address said recommendations for a period of five months (February 2024 to June 2024). This failure has the potential for all 49 vulnerable residents to experience adverse consequences from medication use, such as errors due to drug-drug interactions, omissions, duplication of therapy, or miscommunication between care providers. Findings: During a record review of the MRR Binder on 7/10/24 at 3:16 p.m., the Medication Regimen Review (MRR) reports by the Pharmacist included a form titled, Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber, which contained the Pharmacist's recommendations. At end of the notes included a section titled, Physician/Prescriber Response, with three boxes labeled, Agree, Disagree, and Other, and blank lines. Further review of the reports indicated: [DATE], had six recommendations, [DATE], had eight, [DATE], had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-12 · 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, the facility failed to follow guidelines for standard precautions (infection prevention practices that apply to all residents. Standard precautions are based on the principal that all blood, body fluids, secretions .may contain transmissible infectious agents. Standard precautions include hand hygiene .), when one licensed staff did not perform hand hygiene (refers to hand washing, antiseptic hand wash, and alcohol-based hand rub) during: 1. the administration of medications for two of five sampled residents (Residents 14 and 209); and, 2. prior to one of one sampled residents (Resident 9) eating her meal. These failures had the potential to expose residents to infectious agents causing illness and potentially death. Findings: 1. During medication administration observation on 07/10/24 at 8:26 AM, with Resident 14, Licensed Staff D did not perform hand hygiene before preparing medications, before entering the room, or after leaving the room. During medication administration observation on 07/10/24 at 12:16 PM, with Resident 209,…
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 · D2024-07-12 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility did not ensure one of one sampled (Resident 6) residents had her preferences honored when she wanted to get out of bed to have meals and was not assisted. This failure had the result of not being able to enjoy meals while out of bed, reduced respiratory exercise from not getting out of bed and increased skin breakdown by staying in bed all day. Findings: During an interview on 7/8/24 at 11:05 a.m., Resident 6 indicated she liked to get out of bed and have meals in her wheelchair in her room or in the dining room, and the facility had not been helping her to get out of bed for her meals. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/8/24 at 12:46 p.m., Resident 6 was being assisted to sit up in bed by two staff members so she would be able to eat lunch more comfortably in bed. Unlicensed Staff F indicated Resident 6 usually got up to have meals in the dining room but did not that day and could not explain why. During an observation on 7/9/24 at 1 p.m., Resident 6 was sitting in her bed with her lunch tray finished on the bedside…
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 before2024-07-12 · 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 expired medications were immediately removed from stock and disposed of, when six bottles of medication were in the medication storage room two months after their expiration date. This failure had the potential to expose residents to medications that were less effective or risky due to a decrease in strength or a change in chemical composition. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/10/24 at 7:42 AM, with Licensed Staff A in the medication storage room, six 473 ML bottles of Docusate Sodium 50 MG/5 ML had expired 5/2024. Licensed staff A verified the six bottles of Docusate Sodium had expired 5/2024. During an interview on 7/10/24 at 1:40 PM, Licensed Staff A stated expiration dates of medication stored in the medication storage room had been checked at least once per month by the AM (morning shift) Unit Manager. Licensed Staff A further stated the six bottles were stored on a higher shelf and had been overlooked. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled,…
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 · D2024-07-12 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its policies and procedures on antibiotic stewardship, when two of 18 residents, who acquired Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs), were prescribed antibiotics prior to the results of a culture sensitivity test (Residents 34 and 31). [A culture sensitivity test is a test to find germs, such as bacteria or a fungus, that can cause an infection. A sensitivity test checks to see what kind of medicine, such as an antibiotics, will work best to treat the illness or infection]. This failure resulted in the inappropriate use of antibiotics and increased the risk for Residents 34 and 31 to develop multi-drug-resistant organisms and other antibiotic-related complications. Findings: During an interview on 7/11/24 at 9 a.m., Licensed Staff B stated the facility tracked the residents' antibiotic use and followed the McGreer Criteria for UTIs (a clinical criteria designed for the surveillance, diagnosis, and appropriate antibiotic use for UTIs in long-term care facilities). Licensed Staff B stated residents suspected of having 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 · D2024-05-20 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and records review, the facility failed to implement their policy on change of condition/ notification for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1's Responsible Party was not notified of Resident 1's new sheared skin (one of the major causes of skin breakdown in sitting and occurs during transfers, reaching, weight shifts or repositioning) to his coccyx (small bone at the bottom of the spine). This failure did not ensure Resident 1's Responsible Party could exercise her right to be informed and to participate with Resident 1's care and treatment. Findings: During a telephone interview with Family Member A on 4/29/24 at 2:21 p.m., Family Member A stated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility with no skin issues. Family Member A stated on the day Resident 1 was discharged home, she noticed blood on Resident 1's underwear while assisting him to the toilet and found a wound on his buttocks. She stated the facility did not notify her of Resident 1's new wound. A review of 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 · D2024-05-20 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and records review, the facility failed to safeguard resident's property for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in Resident 1's missing clothes upon discharge from the facility. Findings: During a telephone interview with Family Member A on 4/29/24 at 2:21 p.m., Family Member A stated Resident 1 lost his gray pants, compression socks, underwear, and black shirt during his thirteen days stay at the facility. Family Member A stated she told the facility staff of the missing clothes; however, Family Member A was only told that they will look for it. Family Member A stated clothes from other residents were sent home with Resident 1. A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including but not limited to Cerebral Infarction (also known as stroke); and Dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS…
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
$127,689 in federal fines across 7 penalties.
- $4,938 — penalty dated 2024-02-20
- $94,169 — penalty dated 2024-02-09
- $4,587 — penalty dated 2024-01-02
- $11,645 — penalty dated 2023-12-11
- $3,176 — penalty dated 2023-10-17
- $2,823 — penalty dated 2023-10-10
- $6,351 — penalty dated 2023-09-18
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDMONDS, AARON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | 50% | since 02/01/2023 |
| NICCOLI, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 50% | since 02/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
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 055412. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-08, 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.