Home / California / Anaheim
3067 W Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 · Orange County · (714) 827-2440
83 certified beds, about 78 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 555445 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 21, 2026, inspectors cited 27 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 66 health citations since September 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.22 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.53 of those hours.
24.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to Cambridge Healthcare Services, an affiliated group of 32 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 66 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of 20 final sampled residents (Residents 3 and 6) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 56) were treated with respect and dignity. * The facility failed to ensure the video with Residents 3, 6, and 56 on it was not posted in the social media . This failure posed the risk to negatively affect the residents' psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure four of five final sampled residents (Residents 2, 8, 49, and 83) reviewed for unnecessary medications and one of 20 final sampled residents (Resident 1) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. * The facility failed to ensure the monitoring of meal intake related to the use of the mirtazapine medication was accurate for Resident 1. The facility failed to ensure the monitoring of Resident 1's meal intake in the MAR matched the CNA documentation when the resident ate less than 50%. *The facility failed to consistently monitor Resident 2's behaviors related to the use of the trazodone (antidepressant medication), sertraline (antidepressant medication) and Seroquel (antipsychotic medication) medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and facility P& review, the facility failed to ensure two of 20 final sampled residents (Residents 3 and 6) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 56) were free from abuse or exploitation as per the facility's P&P. * The facility failed to ensure the facility's protocols were discussed prior to providing activities to Residents 3, 6 and 56 who were in the video posted in the social media. This failure put the residents at risk for potential abuse and exploitation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to reflect the individual care needs for four of 20 final sampled residents (Residents 17, 23, 49, and 68). * The facility failed to develop a care plan problem to address Resident 17's new diagnosis of prurigo nodularis (a chronic, debilitating skin condition characterized by the eruption of intensely itchy, firm, and hard bumps (nodules) on the skin). * The facility failed to develop a care plan problem to address Resident 23's use of CPAP machine at the bedside. * The facility failed to implement bilateral floor mats per Resident 49's care plan for falls. In addition, the facility failed to monitor Resident 49's urinary output per his care plan for the use of an indwelling urinary foley catheter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure four of 20 final sampled residents (Residents 8, 17, 37, and 68) attained and maintained their highest practicable physical well-being. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 17's treatments were updated and directed towards Resident 17's newly identified diagnosis of prurigo nodularis rather than continued treatment for a dermatological rash. In addition, the facility failed to ensure the physician's order for therapeutic shampoo was followed. * The facility failed to ensure insulin injection sites were rotated per the physician's order for Residents 8 and 37. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate care and services for the use of the GT for three of three final sampled residents (Residents 5, 11, and 81) reviewed for GT care. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 5 and 11's free flush water bag was labeled with the resident's name, date, and start time. Additionally, the facility failed to label the piston syringe with the resident's name, date, and time the syringe was changed. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 81's enteral free water bag via enteral pump was labeled with resident's name, date, time, and initials by the nurse. These failures had the potential to place Residents 5, 11, and 81 at risk for complications related to the use of the GT.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the respiratory care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards for four of 20 final sampled residents (Residents 5, 23, 35, and 89) and two nonsampled residents (Residents 57 and 74). * The facility failed to ensure the oxygen was administered as ordered for Resident 5. In addition, the facility failed to ensure Resident 5's nasal cannula was labeled. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 23's oxygen tubing was labeled and dated. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was obtained and the appropriate instructions were obtained to maintain the appropriate care of Resident 23's CPAP machine, mask and tubing. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 35's nasal cannula was labeled. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure food safety were followed in the facility's kitchen. * Expired food was not discarded. * Food was not properly dated and labeled. These failures posed the risk for food borne illnesses in a highly susceptible resident population of 69 residents who received food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate medical records for six of 20 final sampled residents (Residents 2, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 49). * The facility failed to accurately document the prescribed dosage of Trazodone, an antidepressant medication, on Resident 2's signed consent form. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure that Resident 2's Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status was maintained within his electronic medical record. * Resident 7's shift monitoring for left upper extremity edema did not match the weekly nursing progress note. * The facility failed to ensure the POLST for Residents 9 and 49 were completed. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 10's medical record had the completed POLST Form of the resident on file. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain the infection prevention control program and practices designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and infections. * The facility failed to maintain an accurate infection control surveillance program for November 2025 through April 2026. The facility conducted surveillance only on the residents who exhibited signs and symptoms of an infection and were prescribed antimicrobial medications. The facility failed to ensure the residents exhibited signs and symptoms of an infection but were not prescribed antimicrobial medications were included in the facility's infection control surveillance log, and in the monthly infection surveillance report. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of five sampled residents for unnecessary medications (Residents 8 and 83) reviewed for informed consents were provided the right to self-determination regarding the use of the psychotropic medications and treatments. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 83's informed consent for the mirtazapine (antidepressant medication) showed nonpharmacological approaches used. Additionally, the prescribing physician did not sign the informed consent form. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 8's informed consents for the alprazolam (antianxiety medication), bupropion (antidepressant medication) and sertraline (antidepressant medication) showed whether the medications had caution and warning summary, FDA-approved use, and a black warning label. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medications were safely administered for one of 74 residents (Resident 64). * Resident 64 had the Zoryve Cream 0.3% (a prescription medication used to treat inflammatory skin conditions) at bedside. However, Resident 64 did not have a physician's order to keep the medication at the bedside. This failure had the potential for the resident to administer the medication inaccurately, develop adverse reactions, and negatively affect the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to obtain and maintain a copy of the Advance Directive for one of seven final sampled residents (Resident 12) investigated for Advance Directives. * Resident 12's Advance Directive was not in the medical record. This failure had the potential to result in the resident's wishes regarding medical treatment and services not being followed if they became unable to make their own medical decisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of 20 residents reviewed for functional assessments (Resident 3) was completely assessed. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 6's use of transfer pole was assessed and documented. This failure had the potential to result in unnecessary use of, ineffective and/ or lack of monitoring of transfer pole use which could negatively affect resident's practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were provided to prevent the risk and development of pressure injuries for one of one final sampled resident (Resident 49) reviewed for pressure injuries. * The facility failed to provide a low air loss mattress for Resident 49 per the physician's order. This failure posed Resident 49 at risk for the development or worsening of pressure injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were provided for two of three final sampled residents (Residents 13 and 79) reviewed for accidents. *Resident 13 had an unwitnessed fall incident on 5/7/26. Resident 13's post-fall neurological assessment was incomplete. * The facility failed to ensure the safe smoking practices were followed for one resident who smoked in the facility as evidenced by Resident 79 who was assessed as requiring supervision while smoking and with a history of non-compliance with the facility's smoking P&P was permitted to keep the cigarettes, lighters, and other smoking articles/materials in his possession. These failures had the potential for adverse outcomes related to accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of two final sampled residents (Resident 49) reviewed for nutrition received an acceptable nutritional service. * The facility failed to monitor weekly weights for Resident 49 per physician's orders. This failure had the potential risk of nutritional interventions not being implemented in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain the intravenous (IV) accesses for one of one final sampled resident (Resident 68) reviewed for IV therapy. * The facility failed to ensure the midline line external catheter baseline measurements were obtained and documented for Resident 68. This failure had the potential to delay the identification of IV catheter related complications for the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate pain management for one of one final sampled residents (Resident 49) reviewed for pain management. * The facility failed to administer Resident 49's prescribed lidocaine patch (a topical adhesive patch containing the local anesthetic lidocaine, designed to deliver the medication directly through the skin to numb a specific area) per the physician's orders. In addition, the facility failed to ensure the nonpharmacological interventions were provided for Resident 49 prior to the administration of his pain medication and the side effects of the pain medication were monitored per Resident 49's care plan. These failures had the potential to result in ineffective pain management and unnecessary discomfort for Resident 49.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the dialysis care and services were provided for one of one final sampled resident (Residents 7) reviewed for dialysis care. * The facility failed to ensure the Dialysis Communication Forms for Resident 7 were completed and accurate on multiple dates. This failure had the potential of not identifying negative outcomes for Resident 7.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the facility staffs (RN 1, RN 2, and LVN 7) had specific competencies and standard of practice skill sets needed to provide the safe and efficient nursing care to the residents. * The facility failed to ensure RNs 1 and 2 were competent on assessing the Permacath (dialysis access) for Resident 7. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 7 demonstrated competency in the administration of the ophthalmic medication and nasal spray medication. These failures had the potential to put the residents at risks of the care not provided in a safe and competent manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmaceutical services to ensure accurate administration and reconciliation of the medications. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 7 administered eye drops and nasal spray correctly to Resident 53. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 66's hydrocodone-acetaminophen (an opioid medication used to manage moderate to severe pain) tablet was documented administered in resident's MAR when the Antibiotic or Controlled Drug Record showed hydrocodone-acetaminophen was taken from Medication Cart A narcotic drawer. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 11 flushed Resident 67's GT with 15 ml of warm water in between medication as per facility's P&P. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for unnecessary medications were free from unnecessary medications. * The facility failed to monitor the side effects for the use of Eliquis (blood thinner medication) for Resident 2. This failure had the potential for adverse effects related to the medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was below 5%. The facility's medication error rate was 7.69%. One of the four licensed nurses (LVN 7) who were observed during medication administration was found to have errors. * LVN 7 failed to ensure the sodium chlorine (mineral and electrolyte supplement) medication was administered to Resident 60 with meals as per the physician's order. * LVN 7 failed to administer the correct artificial tears eye drops to Resident 53. These failures created the risk for the residents to have potential side effects or complications related to the medications including gastrointestinal discomfort from improper sodium chloride administration, and ineffective or inappropriate treatment related to the administration of incorrect sodium ophthalmic medication formulation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure safe medication storage in one of three medication carts (Medication Carts A) and one of one medication room inspected. * The facility failed to ensure Medication Room A was closed and locked at all times. * The facility failed to ensure internal and external medications were stored separately in Medication Room A. * The facility failed to ensure disposal of medication was signed by two nurses. These failures had the potential for the residents to be exposed to the expired medications and the potential to lead to medication errors and place the residents at risk of receiving the wrong type of medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record, facility record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of 69 residents served with meal trays (Resident 3) the recipe was followed and prepared appropriately. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 3's chopped meat diet as ordered by the physician is followed and prepared appropriately. This had the potential for the resident not receiving adequate nutrition, and appropriate servings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' care equipment were maintained in a safe operating condition. * The facility failed to ensure to monitor the Assure Platinum Blood Glucose Monitor control for one of two Assure Platinum Blood Glucose Monitor machines for Medication Cart A. This failure had the potential to result in inaccurate blood glucose readings and compromised resident care. * The facility failed to ensure the medication refrigerator in Medication Room A was free from any ice buildup. This failure had the potential to affect the stability and integrity of temperature sensitive medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to protect the residents' personal privacy for two of four sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2). * The facility failed to ensure the consent for photography was obtained for Residents 1 and 2, when videos were made of the residents without their permission and posted to the social media. This posed the risk of negatively affecting the residents' dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the Transfer, Discharge Notices were given to Resident 1, 2, and 3's Responsible Party during the transfer to the acute care hospital. * Resident 1 was transferred to the acute care hospital on 1/10/26. The Transfer, Discharge Notice was documented as sent to the acute care hospital. * Resident 2 was transferred to the acute care hospital on 3/3/26. The Transfer, Discharge Notice was documented as sent to the acute care hospital. * Resident 3 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The Transfer Discharge Notice was documented as sent to the acute care hospital. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents' health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement the P&P to ensure the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with Section 1150B for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 1's sexual abuse allegation by a facility staff was reported timely to the CDPH L&C Program. This failure had the potential for abuse to go unreported and uninvestigated timely at a facility with a highly vulnerable resident population.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen as evidenced by: * The facility failed to ensure the kitchen utensils were clean and free of food particles or residue. * The facility failed to ensure the kitchen utensils had a smooth cleanable surface and were in good condition. * The facility failed to ensure the heavy-duty blenders used for puree preparation, the clear plastic pitchers, and a measuring pitcher used for beverages were air dried prior to storing and stacking. * The facility failed to ensure the sanitary condition of the hood over the stove was maintained. These failures had the potential for cross contamination and foodborne illnesses for the residents consuming the food prepared in the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to determine if it was safe for one nonsampled Resident (Resident 14) to self-administer the medication. * Resident 14 was observed with a medication at the bedside. Resident 14 had no physician's order, assessment, and a care plan for the self-administration of the medications. This failure had the potential for Resident 14 to administer the medication inaccurately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the call lights were within reach for two of 19 final sampled residents (Residents 40 and 50). This failure had the potential for Residents 40 and 50 not to receive care and assistance when needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to develop the resident-centered care plans to reflect the individual care needs of two of 19 final sampled residents (Residents 34 and 48) * Resident 48's Care Plan addressing the resident's Mood and Behavioral Symptoms dated 1/29/24, did not include the interventions consistent with the interventions on the Informed Consent Renewal- Psychoactive Medications dated 5/11/25. * The facility failed to develop a comprehensive individualized care plan to address the interventions to address the PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level II recommended interventions for Resident 34. These failures posed the risk of not providing the appropriate and individualized care to Residents 34 and 48 to meet the highest practicable mental health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medications were handled securely, accurately labeled, and stored appropriately. * The facility failed to dispose of the expired medication supplies and store the treatment cream separate from the food thickener. This failure had the potential to result in cross-contamination of the medications and posed the risk of non-licensed staff members having access to the medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the menus were followed and the resident nutritional needs were met when the correct portion sizes were not followed for the Mandarin Oranges. This failure had the potential for 10 out of 69 residents receiving pureed food prepared in the kitchen to not meet their nutritional needs, which may lead to nutritional related health complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medical record for one of 19 final sampled residents (Resident 44) was accurate. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 44's information on the POLST was accurate. This failure had the potential for the resident's care needs not being met as their medical information was inaccurate.
Inspectors wrote3. Review of the facility's P&P titled Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment revised 9/2022 showed the resident-care equipment, including reusable items and durable medical equipment will be clean and disinfected according to current CDC (Center of Disease Control and Prevention - service organization that protects the public's health) recommendations for disinfection. On 6/22/25 at 0852 hours, during a general observation of the facility, LVN 1 was in Resident 40's room to verify the call light was on the floor. LVN 1 did not clean the call light when the LVN picked up the call light from the floor, put it on Resident's 40's bed then proceeded to wash her hands. LVN 1 was informed the call light was not cleaned when it was picked up from the floor. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plans to address the individual care needs of two of 19 final sampled residents (Residents 26 and 48). * Resident 26 and 48's care plan interventions were not revised or modified related to skin care and cognitive function. This failure placed the residents at risk of not being provided appropriate, consistent, individualized care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary GT care and services for one of two final sampled residents (Residents 22) reviewed for enteral feeding. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 22's enteral water feeding bag was changed within 24 hours. This failure posed the risk of developing complications related to enteral feeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain the IV access site for one of nonsampled residents (Resident 719) consistent with the professional standards of practice. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 719's PIV was correctly labeled. This failure posed the risk for the resident to develop complications related to the IV therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the respiratory services in a safe manner in accordance with the facility's P&P for one of one final sampled resident (Resident 38) reviewed for the respiratory care. This failure posed the risk for complications and negative health outcomes to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the Nurse Staffing Information was posted daily, which included the total number and actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for the resident care per shift. This failure had the potential of not having the information available to the residents and the public in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmaceutical services when: * LVN 8 failed to administer Resident 520's zinc sulfate (supplement) as ordered by the physician. This failure had the potential to negatively affect the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the garbage was properly stored in two of two garbage dumpsters. This failure had the potential to attract pest/rodents that carried diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement the P&P for ensuring the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150B of the Act when the facility did not report an allegation of abuse to the CDPH, L&C Program for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 5). This failure had the potential for Resident 5 to be vulnerable to further abuse and emotional distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the food safety and sanitation requirements were met in the kitchen when: * The facility failed to monitor for Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods (food that require time and temperature controls to limit the growth of illness causing bacteria) to ensure proper cool down process was followed. * The facility failed to ensure the proper hand hygiene was practiced by dietary staff in the kitchen. * The facility failed to ensure the food past the use-by date was discarded. * The facility failed to ensure the items in the refrigerator were labeled correctly. * The facility failed to properly air-dry the kitchen equipment. * The facility failed to ensure the vendors donned their hair restraints or beard restraints in the kitchen. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the reasonable accommodations to meet the needs of two of 22 final sampled residents (Residents 3 and 115). * The facility failed to ensure Residents 115's call light and remote control for the bed were within resident's reach. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 3's call light was within the resident's reach. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents' psychosocial well-being or result in a delay to receive care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to notify the resident's representatives of the transfer and reasons for the transfer to the acute care hospital in writing and send a copy of the notice of transfer to the representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman for one of two sampled residents (Resident 19) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure posed the risk of the resident's representatives not being aware of their appeal rights and the Ombudsman not being aware of the circumstances of the resident's transfer/discharge should an appeal be filed or requested by the resident or their representatives regarding the transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the resident or the resident's representative was provided a written bed hold policy upon transfer to the acute care hospital for one of two sampled residents (Resident 19) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure had the potential for the resident or the resident's representative to not be informed of their rights to return to the facility following a hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure one of three closed record review sampled residents (Resident 78) attained and maintained the highest practicable physical well-being. * Resident 78's had an order for stat (a common medical abbreviation for urgent or rush, means immediately) chest x-ray on [DATE] at 1019 hours. Resident 78's chest x-ray result received was dated [DATE] at 1954 hours, more than a day later, when the stat x-ray was ordered. This failure posed the risk for delayed care and intervention to Resident 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the dialysis care was provided for two final sampled residents reviewed for dialysis treatment (Residents 32 and 39). * Resident 39's fluid intake documented in the MAR was inconsistent with the fluid intake documented in the Fluid Intake with Meals form. * The facility failed to ensure dialysis communication forms for Resident 32 were completed and accurate. These failures had the potential for Residents 32 and 39 not being provided with the appropriate care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medications and biologicals were stored and disposed of properly. * The facility failed to ensure the medication for the discharged resident (Resident 684) was disposed of. * The facility failed to ensure two medication carts (Medication Carts 1 and 3) and the supplies were maintained in a sanitary condition. * The facility failed to ensure proper storage of the IV medication for Resident 75 in Medication room [ROOM NUMBER]. * The facility failed to ensure safe storage of ibuprofen (used to treat mild to moderate pain) and hydrogen peroxide (used to treat minor cuts and scrapes) spray bottle found at Resident 21's bedside. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of 22 final sampled resident (Resident 52) was provided with the prescribed therapeutic diet. * Resident 52 was prescribed with fortified/high protein diet pureed/level 4 texture, thin consistency. Resident 52 was served with fortified/high protein diet pureed/level 4 texture double portions. This failure posed the risk of resident's nutritional needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's P&P for foods brought by family or visitors was followed when: * The facility failed to ensure the food items in the residents' refrigerator were labeled and dated as per the P&P. * The facility failed to discard foods by the use-by date. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses to the medically vulnerable resident population who consumed food brought from outside sources.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the medical records for two of two sampled residents (Residents 18 and 78) were accurate. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 78's closed record was complete and accurate. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the delivery of services as the medical information was inaccurate. * The facility failed to ensure a physician's signature was obtained on the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) for Resident 18. This failure had the potential to result in the residents' health wishes and directive not being honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the coordination of care between the facility and hospice provider for one of one final sampled resident reviewed for hospice services (Resident 28). * Resident 28's hospice monthly personalized visit schedules were incomplete. * Resident 28's hospice aide visit summaries were not completed and the facility failed to show the hospice aide had showered the resident twice per week. * The plan of care was not available or reviewed by the hospice staff. These failures posed the risk of the resident not receiving the care and services required to meet the resident's needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement their Quality Assessment and Assurance plan of action. There was no documentation to show an evaluation of the facility's action plan to identify if the facility had achieved and sustained the improvement for the repeated deficient practices cited at F578, F684, F812, and F880 in accordance with their POC for the Recertification survey completed on 8/13/21. This failure had the potential to affect the quality of care for all the residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the infection control practices were maintained as evidenced by: * The facility failed to ensure two of two laundry dryers were free of noticeable buildup of lint. * The facility failed to ensure the staff performed the infection control practice before placing back the contaminated call light to Resident 3's bed. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 7 performed hand hygiene after picking up the black permanent marker on the floor. These failures had the potential to cause safety hazards and the spread infection to staff and residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the personal belongings were properly recorded at discharge for one of three closed record review sampled residents (Resident 76). This failure had the potential for the residents' personal belongings being lost.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to develop and implement the comprehensive person-centered plan of care to reflect the change of condition for one of three closed record review sampled residents (Resident 78) . This failure posed the risk of not providing appropriate, consistent, and individualized care to Resident 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the DHPPD (Direct Care Services Hours Per Patient Day) nurse staffing form was accurately posted. This failure had the potential to result in inaccurate staffing information provided to the public.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services and adequate supervision for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) to prevent the elopement. * The facility failed to ensure the front door alarm was activated when no one was monitoring the front entrance, resulting in Resident 1 going out of the facility undetected. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were provided to prevent the development of pressure injuries for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1). * The facility failed to ensure the wound consult was done in a timely manner. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to not receive the appropriate care and services to promote healing of the wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and facility document review, the facility failed to comply with the State laws as evidenced by: * The background checks prior to start of employment were not conducted for two of two CNAs (CNAs 1 and 2). This failure posed the risk of employing staff with criminal backgrounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement their P&P to ensure the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150B of the Act for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1). * RN 1 failed to report Resident 1's allegation of abuse in a timely manner to the Administrator as per the facility's P&P when Resident 1 reported the alleged incident to RN 1 approximately oneweek prior. This failure led to the delay in the investigation of the alleged abuse, which had the potential for the staff to not take any necessary or appropriate corrective action timely to protect the residents.
5 fire safety citations on file: 1 on May 21, 2026, 4 on May 31, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | California | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.22 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.53 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.84 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.47 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.22 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 24.7% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.37 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.38 on weekdays and 3.84 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.16 in April to June 2025 to 4.22 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.22 | 0.53 | 4.38 | 3.84 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 78 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.18 | 0.44 | 4.32 | 3.82 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.18 | 0.47 | 4.32 | 3.81 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.16 | 0.46 | 4.28 | 3.86 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 79 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| California, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.36 | 0.59 | 4.52 | 3.97 | 2.3% | 0.5% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| California, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.90 | $22.04 to $26.35 | 110,060 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.34 | $35.98 to $45.06 | 82,850 |
| Registered nurses | $67.44 | $58.87 to $83.25 | 338,940 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | California | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.0 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.2 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.8 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.2 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.0 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Anaheim Crest Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (39.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
39.1% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · California: 301 better, 190 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 147 eligible stays.
9.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · California: 10 better, 22 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 135 eligible stays.
10.2% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · California: 8 better, 48 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 113 eligible stays.
58.3% this home
Median of homes: California59.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 72 residents counted.
0.6% this home
Median of homes: California0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 166 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: California0.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 166 residents counted.
97.2% this home
Median of homes: California96.2% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 36 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: 3067 ORANGE AVENUE LLC. CMS links this home to Cambridge Healthcare Services, a group of 32 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Win Win Enterprises, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 44% | 05/16/1990 |
| Wolff Living Trust Dtd 03/09/2000 | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 11% | 05/16/1990 |
| Deutsch, Baruch | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 11% | 04/10/2000 |
| Shersher LP | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 05/16/1990 | |
| The Wintner Living Trust Dated 7/08/1992 | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 04/10/2000 | |
| Wintner, Jacob | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 04/10/2000 | |
| Bagsic, Jonah | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Kuizon, Kristina | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Wintner, Jacob | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/10/2000 | |
| Professional Directions for Health Care | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/23/2013 | |
| Bagsic, Jonah | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Butenko, Julie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/24/2023 | |
| Capela, Heidi | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/03/2023 | |
| Hassell, Lance | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/25/2022 | |
| Kuizon, Kristina | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Lee, Ching | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/20/2011 | |
| Lutz, Linda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Pascual, Betsy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/13/2018 | |
| Salazar, Paulina | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/14/2022 | |
| Anaheim Crest N | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/15/2018 | |
| Cambridge Healthcare Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/07/2025 | |
| Professional Directions for Health Care | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/04/2025 | |
| Bagsic, Jonah | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Butenko, Julie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/24/2023 | |
| Capela, Heidi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/03/2023 | |
| Hassell, Lance | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/25/2022 | |
| Kuizon, Kristina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Lee, Ching | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/20/2011 | |
| Lutz, Linda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Pascual, Betsy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/13/2018 | |
| Salazar, Paulina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/14/2022 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its California inspection record.
These are the official offices in California. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.