Trinity Hospital Skilled Nursing Facility
60 Easter Ave, Weaverville, CA 96093 · For profit - Individual · 13 certified beds · (530) 623-5541 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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) | 1 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 | 3 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 3 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 | 16.7% | 10.2% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.8% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 10.4% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.6% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.6% | 13.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.9% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.4% | 10.2% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.8% | 12.0% | 17.1% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 13 beds and averages 13.3 residents a day — about 102% occupied, or roughly -0 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 5.75 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.45 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 4.91 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.09 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.55 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure that one of three residents sampled (Resident 1) did not receive unnecessary medications (any drug prescribed or taken that does not provide a clear, valid medical benefit to the person it was given to) when he was given a combination of three medications (Benadryl also known as diphenhydramine [an over-the-counter allergy medication that causes drowsiness], Haldol also known as haloperidol [a strong antipsychotic medication used to treat severe behavioral problems], and Ativan also known as lorazepam [a medication used to treat anxiety disorders and which causes drowsiness]). This failure could have resulted in negative outcomes for Resident 1 such as respiratory depression, falls, fractures, confusion and excessive drowsiness.Findings: Review of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (a nationally recognized professional resource for geriatric healthcare [the medical specialty that focuses on the health and care of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-05 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and nursing schedule review, the facility failed to ensure that there was a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty 8 hours every day for 7 days a week. This failure had the potential to adversely affect resident's quality of care and quality of life with regards to overall health and well-being.Findings: A review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ, an electronic system for facilities to submit staffing information), for Fiscal Year Quarter 2 for 2025, (January 1-March 31), indicated the facility had no RN on duty for;01/04 Saturday (SA); 01/12 (Sunday SU);02/01 (SA); 02/08 (SA); 02/15 (SA); 02/22 (SA);03/01 (SA); 03/08 (SA); 03/22 (SA); and 03/29 (SA).A review of the PBJ for Fiscal Year Quarter 4 for 2024, (July1-September 30), indicated the facility had no RN on duty for;07/01 Monday (MO); 07/03 Wednesday (WE); 07/04 Thursday (TH); 07/05 Friday (FR); 07/06 (SA); 07/07 (SU); 07/08 (MO); 07/09 Tuesday (TU); 07/12(FR); 07/14 (SU); 07/18 (TH); 07/19 (FR); 07/20 (SA); 07/21 (SU); 07/25 (TH); 07/26 (FR); 07/27 (SA); 07/28 (SU); 07/31 (WE); 08/01 (TH); 08/04 (SU); 08/09 (FR);…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice to ensure food service safety for the residents of the facility when: 1. During the initial tour food preparation equipment was not sanitary. 2. Dietary staff failed to maintain clean, sanitary floors. 3. Dietary staff failed to keep foods stored away from unsanitary surfaces in the walk-in refrigerator. These failures had the potential for risk of cross contamination, to cause infection control issues, and lead to food borne illness for residents consuming food in the facility. A review of a facility document titled, Infection Control, Dietary, with an expiration date of 11/07/2025, indicated, .services are provided in a manner that minimizes the risk of hospital acquired infections to patients, staff, and visitors. The document continues, Keep work areas, surfaces.clean and orderly. and Observe safe practices in storing and serving foods. A review of a facility document titled, Cleaning List- AM Cooks, undated, indicated, the cleaning of the steam table (a table…
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 · E2025-09-05 · 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 adequate pharmaceutical services, including accurate dispensing, and administering of all drugs, to meet the needs of each resident for two of three Residents (Residents 1 and 8) when Diclofenac Sodium (generic name) External Gel 1% / Voltaren (brand name) External Gel 1% (Topical gel containing an active ingredient of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug NSAID for pain relief) was ordered, dispensed, and administered without appropriate order details including the dosage quantity as required by professional standards. This failure had the potential to endanger the health and safety of residents being administered medication without the appropriate order details including dosage amount to be dispensed.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication and Treatment Orders, SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) Pharmacy, dated 7/3/25, the policy indicated, Orders for medication and treatments will be consistent with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-07-31 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and nursing schedule review, the facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. This had the potential to adversely affect all of the residents' quality of life and quality of care. Findings: A review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ, an electronic system for facilities to submit staffing information) for Fiscal Year Quarter 1, 10/01/24-12/21/24, indicated the facility had no RN on duty for; 10/02/24, 10/03/24, 10/04/24, 10/6/24, 10/07/24, 10/08/24, 10/13/24, 10/14/24, 10/15/24, 10/20/24, 10/21/24, 10/22/24, 10/27/24, 10/28/24, 10/29/24, 11/03/24, 11/4/24, 11/05/24, 11/10/24, 11/11/24, 11/12/24, 11/17/24, 11/18/24, 11/19/24, 11/24/24, 11/25/24, 12/01/24, 12/02/24, 12/03/24, 12/09/24,12/10/24, 12/15/24, 12/16/24, 12/17/24, 12/22/24, 12/23/24, 12/24/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, and 12/31/24. A review of the PBJ for Fiscal Year Quarter 2 for 2024, (01/1/24-03/31/24), indicated the facility had no RN on duty for; 01/05/24, 01/06/24, 01/07/24, 01/14/24, 01/20/24, 01/21/24, 01/27/24, 01/28/24, 02/09/24, 02/10/24,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-21 · tag F0641 — widespreadEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment tool that described resident health and functional status) assessments were completed accurately for eight out of nine sampled residents, (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9) when the MDS's incorrectly indicated that these residents were using restraints (a device that limits a resident's movement). This failure had the potential for an inaccurate picture of the resident's status. Findings: A review of the document titled, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care (LTC) Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/1/19, located on the CMS website: MDS 3.0 RAI Manual v1.17.1_October 2019 (cms.gov), page 20 indicated: Medicare and Medicaid participating LTC facilities are required to conduct comprehensive, accurate, standardized and reproducible assessments of each resident's functional capacity and health status. During a review of Resident 1'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 · F2023-07-21 · tag F0711 — widespreadEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
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 that the attending Physician (AP), took an active role in the supervision of the care for 7 of 9 sampled residents (Resident 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10), when; 1. AP did not acknowledge, sign and date the current Active Orders (the physician's orders give the facility the legal authority to provide specific care and services to residents), for the months of June and July, 2023. 2. AP did not document a Progress Note (a note describing the Resident's current status at the time when the physician visited), in each Resident's medical record after he saw them each month. These failures had the potential for residents to not receive the appropriate level of care and services and negatively impact their ability to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of emotional and physical well-being. Findings: A review of the facility's policy titled, Attending Physician Responsibilities, SNF dated 3/29/22, indicated, The provider will verify 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 · Fcited before2023-07-21 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and nursing schedule review, the facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, and have a Director of Nursing (DON) on site for 40 hours per week, to supervise the care of all of the residents. This had the potential to adversely affect all of the residents' quality of life and quality of care. Findings: A review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ, an electronic system for facilities to submit staffing information) for Fiscal Year Quarter 1 for 2023, (10/1/22-12/31/22), indicated the facility had no RN on duty for; 10/1/22, 10/2/22, 10/08/22, 10/09/22, 10/15/22, 10/16/22, 10/23/22, 11/12/22, 11/13/22, 11/20/22, 11/26/22, 11/27/22, 12/01/22, 12/03/22, 12/04/22, 12/09/22, 12/10/22, 12/11/22, 12/16/22, 12/18/22, 12/22/22, 12/23/22, 12/24/22, 12/25/22, 12/26/22, 12/27/22, 12/28/22, 12/29/22, and 12/31/22. A review of the PBJ for Fiscal Year Quarter 2 for 2023, (1/1/23-3/31/23) indicated the facility had no RN on duty for; 1/6/23, 1/7/23, 1/12/23, 1/14/23, 1/15/23, 1/16/23, 1/22/23, 1/27/23, 1/29/23, 2/3/23,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-21 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — widespreadEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Pharmacy Consultant's (PC) Medication Regimen Review (MRR), recommendations were acted upon (responded to), by the attending physician (AP), for eight of nine sampled residents (Resident's 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10), when: 1. AP did not respond to MRR recommendations for Resident 1 in April, 2023. 2. AP did not respond to MRR recommendations for Resident 2 in March and April, 2023. 3. AP did not respond to MRR recommendations for Resident 2 in May, 2023. 4. AP did not respond to MRR recommendations for Resident 6 in June and July, 2023. 5. AP did not respond to MRR recommendation for Resident 7 in July, 2023. 6. AP did not respond to MRR recommendations for Resident 8 in May, 2023. 7. AP did not respond to MRR recommendations for Resident 9 in June, 2023. 8. AP did not respond to MRR recommendations for Resident 10 in June, 2023. These failures had the potential for the residents to have negative clinical outcomes and subject 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 · D2023-07-21 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to encode a Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment tool) and submit assessments as required for one out of two sampled residents (Resident 5), when Resident 5 passed away on 4/22/23, and a discharge MDS was not submitted to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid). This failure had the potential to result in inaccurate record keeping. Findings: A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Electronic Transmission of the MDS, SNF indicated all MDS assessments would be completed and electronically encoded into the facility's MDS system in accordance with current OBRA (Federal) regulations governing the transmission of MDS data. A review of Resident 5's clinical records indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbances (inability to remember, think, or recall information that included behaviors). Resident 5 passed away on 4/22/23. During a concurrent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-21 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 one out of nine sampled residents (Resident 4) with treatment and services that were consistent with the facility's policies and procedures (P&P), when Resident 4 developed a stage two pressure ulcer (a shallow open area of the skin with a red or pink woundbed), and a physician ordered treatment was not obtained, his responsible party was not notified, nursing had not documented on his change in condition, and he was not turned and/or repositioned every two hours. This failure had the potential for Resident 4's pressure ulcer (PU) to worsen resulting in a negative health outcome. Findings: A review of the facility's undated P&P titled, Pressure Ulcer Management, SNF indicated when a resident developed a pressure ulcer the physician would be notified no later than 24 hours after discovery of the pressure ulcer and staff would obtain an order for treatment. The P&P indicated nursing interventions that would be included in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one of one sampled residents (Resident 10) was reassessed for safe smoking, supervised during smoking, and that his plan of care was followed. This had the potential to result in physical and psychosocial harm for Resident 10. Findings: A review of the facility's policy titled, Smoking Policy-Residents, SNF dated 3/29/22, indicated, smoking is not allowed inside the facility, this includes electronic cigarettes. The resident will be evaluated on admission to determine if he or she is a smoker. The evaluation will include the current level of tobacco consumption, method, and the desire to quit smoking. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cognitive decline (difficulty with recall, and thinking), diabetes, high blood pressure, and need for assistance with personal care. During a record review of Resident 10's, Active Orders dated 5/24/23, the orders indicated Resident 10 did not have…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-21 · 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 provide safe storage and labeling of resident medications and medical supplies when: 1. Over the Counter (OTC) medications were not labeled with an open date in one out of one medication cart (used to store resident medication). 2. Expired wound care supplies were stored in the treatment cart. 3. The treatment cart, located in the hallway across from the nurse's station, was left unlocked and unattended. 4. Expired laboratory supplies were stored in one of two storage rooms. 5. The medication disposal box (where discontinued medication is kept awaiting destruction), located in the nurse's station was not secure and could be easily accessed and the medications removed. These failures had the potential for unsafe medication use, and the use of medical tests and supplies which would no longer be effective, which could lead to negative clinical outcomes for the residents. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE] at…
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 before2023-07-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food safety and sanitation guidelines were followed when: 1. The deep freezer had a collapsed interior lid and ice buildup, where frozen food was stored. 2. Chipped paint with exposed rust or corrosion was on white wire shelves in the three-door reach in refrigerator, where food was stored. 3. The ventilation fans in the walk-in refrigerator, and the fans by the upper windows within the kitchen, had black debris and dust buildup. 4. The pipes under the food preparation sink next to the stove and dishwashing area, were covered with black debris and cumulative dust. 5. An open, unlabed, and undated ice cream cup was in the kitchenette designated for resident snacks. 6. Multiple areas of tile and floor covering was missing from the kitchen floor and there was dirt and debris in the corners of the floor. 7. A large area in the kitchen ceiling had an open hole, exposing the wood rafters near the dishwashing area at the exit door. These failures had the potential for the resident's to consume unsanitary food…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRAXTON, AMANDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/02/2016 |
| COUSINS, JERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/01/2007 |
| FORSLUND, DERO | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/03/2014 |
| JUNGWIRTH, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/28/2012 |
| ROGERS, AARON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/10/2015 |
| MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES HEALTHCARE DISTRICT | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/26/2017 |
| SIMPSON, KELLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/09/2009 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
What families pay in CA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the California Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 555907. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-05, 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.