Home / California / Grass Valley
396 Dorsey Dr, Grass Valley, CA 95945 · Nevada County · (530) 272-2273
99 certified beds, about 96 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1987
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 555283 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 23, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 46 health citations since March 2019 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 3.70 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.26 of those hours.
46.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 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 46 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to administer medication as prescribed for one of 27 sampled resident (Resident 45) when fluoxetine (a medication used to treat depression) was unavailable during scheduled medication administration on two consecutive days. This failure resulted that Resident 45 missed one scheduled dose of fluoxetine on the first day and received a dose borrowed from another resident on the second day.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately and consistently monitor fluid intake status for one of three sample residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to delay care and treatment and adversely affect Resident 1's hydration status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident safety for one resident (Resident 1) when the facility did not provide adequate monitoring and supervision of Resident 1, for a census of 98. This failure resulted in Resident 1 eloping from the facility and reducing the facility's potential in keeping Resident 1 safe from harm. Resident 1's admission Record (AR), indicated that Resident 1 was admitted in September of 2024 with diagnoses including unspecified dementia (memory loss), with anxiety (persistent, excessive fear and worry) and mood disturbance. Resident 1's Order Summary dated 1/10/26 indicated, Check placement of wander guard located on left ankle every shift, monitor skin and notify MD [physician] as needed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) from abuse when Resident 2 hit Resident 1 on the left side of the face. This failure resulted in Resident 1 sustaining a discoloration on the left jaw and had the potential for Resident 1 to experience fear or distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) from elopement (to leave an area of safety unsupervised and undetected) outside the facility. This failure had the potential to result in serious injury or death for Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service when expired or undated food was observed in freezer and dry food cupboards. These failures placed 94 residents out of a census of 95 who received food served by the facility at risk for receiving expired foods.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure an irregularity was identified during the medication regimen review for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 82) when Resident 82 had an order for a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication (a drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) without a stop date. This failure had the potential for Resident 82 to receive unnecessary medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a significant change in status assessment (SCSA, an assessment that indicates major decline or improvement in the resident's status) was initiated for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 294) when Resident 294 developed a stage four pressure ulcer (PU, deep wound reaching the muscles, ligaments, and bones) to the sacrococcyx (joint that connects the sacrum- triangular bone and the coccyx - tail bone). This failure decreased the facility's potential to provide appropriate care and services to Resident 294 based on his status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan to monitor newly identified behaviors was followed for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 50). This failure increased the potential for Resident 50 to take medications without a physician's order and potentially cause side effects or adverse effects to resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided according to accepted standard of practice for three of 26 sampled residents (Resident 50, Resident 88, and Resident 74) when: 1. Resident 50's medications were left at bedside; 2. Resident 88 had no physician's order on the use of neck brace; and 3. Resident 74's order to check placement of resident's Gastrostomy Tube (GT, tube inserted into the stomach to deliver nutrition, and medications) was not followed. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing of Resident 50, Resident 88, and Resident 74.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's needs were met for one of 19 sampled residents (Resident 77) when the dining room table was too high for the resident during the lunch meal. This failure had the potential to diminish Resident 77's self-esteem and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 86) was evaluated and treated by a podiatrist (foot doctor) when Resident 86's toenails were thick, discolored and long. This failure resulted in Resident 86 having pain when walking and had the risk potential to cut the skin.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were provided timely for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 14) when Resident 14 was not seen by the attending physician every 30 days during the first 90 days of admission. This failure had the potential to delay detection of declining health and the provision of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its medication error rate was less than five percent (5%) for three of 26 sampled residents, Resident 32, Resident 74, and Resident 194, when: 1. Licensed Nurse 3 (LN 3) did not follow the physician's order in administering Resident 32's prescribed medication; and 2. LN 1 did not perform a pre-flush (flushing the tube with water before administering medication, to ensure the tube remains clear and patent) to Resident 74's Gastrostomy Tube (GT, tube inserted into the stomach to deliver nutrition, and medications. GT has 2 ports called feeding port and balloon port which is not used for feeding or medications. These ports are covered with red caps); and 3. LN 5 did not follow the physician's order in administering Resident 194's prescribed medication. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 14) received timely dental treatment when prior dental visits indicated that follow up dental services was necessary. This failure had the potential to place Resident 14 at risk for further oral decline and overall health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adaptive eating equipment (specialized tools and devices designed to assist individuals with disabilities or physical limitations in eating and drinking independently. These aids help make mealtimes easier, more enjoyable, and promote independence) to one out of 26 sampled residents, Resident 10, when Resident 10 did not have a plate guard (a device that clips onto a plate to prevent food from accidentally sliding off) and a two handled cup with a lid during his meals. This failure had the potential to cause dehydration, malnutrition and increased dependency on staff for feeding for Resident 10.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow guidelines for infection control practices and provide safe, and sanitary environment for two of 26 sampled residents, Resident 74 and Resident 40 when: 1. Resident 74's Gastrostomy Tube's (GT, tube inserted into the stomach to deliver nutrition, and medications. GT has 2 ports called feeding port and a balloon port which is not used for feeding or medications. These ports are covered with red caps) red cap fell on the floor, and Licensed Nurse 1 (LN 1) picked up the red cap and connected it back to one of the GT's ports; and 2. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 5) touched the inside of Resident 40's nosey cup (NC, designed with a nose cutout to encourage correct head position) with her bare hands. These failures had the potential to result in infections for vulnerable residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were placed within easy reach of residents for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 34). This failure had the risk potential for the residents to be unable to call for staff assistance with their daily care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to promote safety measures for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 82) when Resident 82's order for the use of a wanderguard (a device that activates sensors on doors to alarm, alerting staff to intervene when wandering residents attempt to elope) was not followed. This failure increased Resident 82's risk for elopement.
Inspectors wroteThe facility failed to follow their medication administration policy and procedure (P&P) for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Licensed Nurse (LN) A documented that LN A had administered medication to Resident 1 when another nurse administered the medication on LN A ' s behalf. This failure resulted in inaccurate documentation and could cause confusion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was stored safely for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 stored medication in an unlocked drawer of the bedside table. This failure had the potential for unauthorized persons to have access to medication that was not prescribed to them.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the floor was sticky through out the room. This had the potential to spread infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician ' s orders when three of four sampled residents (Resident 2, 3, and 4) did not receive their morning medications in a timely manner as per professional standards. These failures resulted in the delay of prescribed medications being administered and the potential for negative outcomes that could affect residents ' health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an incentive spirometer (IS, a handheld device that helps patients improve lung function by teaching them to breathe in slowly and deeply) to meet the needs for one of four sampled residents (Resident 2). This failure had the potential to adversely affect the health and well-being of Resident 2.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards when: 1. A discontinued medication was not removed and discarded from an active medication drawer in Medication Cart B2 (MC B2, a movable piece of equipment used to store, transport, and dispense medicines). 2. MC B2 was not locked and left unattended. 3. Physician ' s instructions on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Pradaxa (a medication used to prevent blood from clotting) and the pharmacy label instructions for Pradaxa did not match. These failures had the potential for medication errors and drug misuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two residents (Resident 1) was provided with a nourishing meal to meet his daily nutritional need when Resident 1 did not receive a meal for. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 being hungry throughout the night.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1), received medication and blood sugar monitoring (checking the level of sugar in the blood for diabetics) at the correct time as ordered by the physician when: 1. Famotidine (medication to decrease stomach acid) was not administered to Resident 1 at 6:00 am for 6 out of 15 days in December 2023 (12/1, 12/7, 12/8, 12/9, 12/13, 12/14.) This failure caused Resident 1 to experience burning in his stomach and made it hard for Resident 1 to eat his meals. 2. Blood sugar monitoring was ordered by the physician 4 times a day for Resident 1 and the facility was monitoring Resident 1 ' s blood sugar 3 times a day. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to have untreated high or low blood sugar levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food preparation and storage practices in the kitchen when: 1. The preparation sink next to the stove (Cook prep sink) did not have an air gap (an air gap refers to a fixture that provides back-flow prevention. When installed and maintained properly, the air gap works to prevent drain water from backing up into the sink and possibly contaminating the area used for washing food. An air gap is a way to make certain wastewater and contaminants never re-enter the clean water supply), which had the potential for backflow from the drain to contaminate the sink. This had the potential to cause foodborne illness, (stomach illness acquired from ingesting contaminated food). 2. The ice machine was not kept in sanitary condition with brownish discoloration when checking with a white paper tower. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to make it known to five out of six sampled residents how a grievance was formally filed. This had the potential to prevent residents making their grievances known, particularly those who wished to do so anonymously.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide supervision adequate to meet the increasing needs of one resident out of a sample of eight (Resident 42), when they failed to proactively intervene to prevent him from wandering into other residents' rooms and touching them/their belongings, and from witnessing his aggression toward staff. This failure resulted in residents feeling unsafe and had the potential to result in injuries and other negative outcomes for Resident 42 and other residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure training to staff who provided residents with supervision during cigarette, smoking breaks when two out of three staff members were not able to state where to find fire safety equipment (fire extinguisher, fire blanket) at the designated resident smoking area. This failure had the potential to cause physical and psychosocial harm to residents in the event of a fire.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff had appropriate competencies to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services when two Dietary Aides (DA A and DA B) were unable to follow Quat container test strip paper's length of time instruction to check the concentration of the quaternary sanitizer (Quat, a solution used to sanitize kitchen work surfaces). This failure had the potential to cause foodborne illness (stomach illness acquired from ingesting contaminated food) to all residents, in a medically compromised population of 83 out of 85 residents who received foods from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect residents from loss of personal property when more than 30 pieces of unlabeled resident clothing items had been observed hanging in a covered clothing rack and staff were unaware of facility expectations with regards to who was responsible for the inventory and labeling of residents' personal clothing. This failure resulted in the loss of resident personal property.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide effective pain management for one out of two residents (Resident 228) when staff failed to notify the facility's General Internal Medicine ([NAME]) of Resident 228's consistent use of as needed (PRN) pain medication. This failure caused a delay in effective pain management and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. This failure had the potential for RN assessment skills and supervision not to be provided daily to residents and staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure (1 of 3) of the garbage dumpster lids were closed properly. This failure to ensure the garbage was contained properly had the potential to attract pests and rodents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool for a residents cognitive and physical abilities) Assessments for two of 12 sampled residents (Residents 12 and 41) when: 1. Resident 12's hearing function was not coded accurately on the MDS assessment. 2. Resident 41's use of the urinary catheter (a tube placed in the body to drain and collect urine from the bladder) was not coded accurately on the MDS assessment. These failures placed Resident 12 and 41 at risk of not receiving an individualized plan of care based on the residents' specific needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain professional standards for food service safety, sanitary conditions, and the prevention of foodborne illness when: 1. RN 1 handled and distributed resident meal trays prior to performing hand hygiene and after touching her hair. 2. [NAME] 1's apron strings touched the floor and were tied by [NAME] 1 after being donned and prior to plating food. 3. Wet brushes used to spread butter were placed in a drawer without being thoroughly dried. This failure had the potential for unsanitary conditions that could lead to contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and administrative document review, the facility failed to have a policy and procedure regarding the handling and storage of foods brought to residents by family and visitors from outside the facility to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption. This failure has the potential to limit the resident rights to have food brought in by the family and visitors and stored by the facility for later consumption.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a complete and accurate record when the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) form (describes patient wishes on end-of-life care), was unsigned by a physician for one of five residents (Resident 67). This failure had the potential for Resident 67's wishes not to be honored in the event of an emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention control program for 4 of 42 sampled residents (Resident 64, Resident 480, Resident 66 and Resident 41) when: 1. Resident 64, Resident 480 and Resident 66's oxygen cannula's (device with tubing to deliver oxygen) were left uncovered and exposed. 2. Certified nursing assistant (CNA 1) and the license vocational/treatment nurse (LVN/Tx Nurse) performed resident care on Resident 41 with soiled gloves and without performing hand hygiene. These failures placed the residents' health and safety at risk for cross contamination and spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote a dignified dining experience for one of five sampled residents (Resident 67) when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 wore gloves while feeding Resident 67. This failure had the potential to diminish Resident 67's self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop a Person-Centered baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission to meet the resident's immediate needs for one of 12 sampled residents (Resident 41) when baseline care plans were not developed on the use of Indwelling Urinary Catheter (a sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine), and Fall risk. These failures placed Resident 41's health at risk when resident's needs were not care planned to meet her immediate needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an activity person-centered comprehensive care plan for one of two sampled residents (Resident 19) to meet Resident 19's activity preferences and goals identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. This failure had the potential to result in not meeting Resident 19's activity preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan within seven days from the completion of the comprehensive assessment for one of two sampled residents (Resident 40) when the comprehensive care plan for Resident 40's indwelling urinary catheter (tubing inserted into the bladder) was not completed in a timely manner. This failure placed the resident's health and safety needs at risk of being unmet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a resident centered activities program for one of two sampled residents (Resident 19) when she was not offered activities of choice and preference to promote pleasure, creativity and self fulfillment. This failure resulted in Resident 19's preferences in activities to go unmet.
52 fire safety citations on file: 27 on May 23, 2025, 14 on October 7, 2022, 11 on March 8, 2019.
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) | 3.70 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.26 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.02 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.30 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.14 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.5% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 42.9% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.67 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 3.98 on weekdays and 3.02 on weekends, 24% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 19.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.84 in April to June 2025 to 3.70 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 | 3.70 | 0.26 | 3.98 | 3.02 | 19.4% | 0 of 90 | 96 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.73 | 0.26 | 3.94 | 3.21 | 7.2% | 1 of 92 | 93 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.69 | 0.25 | 3.81 | 3.41 | 5.5% | 0 of 92 | 95 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.84 | 0.27 | 4.03 | 3.37 | 5.3% | 0 of 91 | 94 |
| 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.
Trains nurse aides: this home runs a state-approved CNA program for its own hires (state list: CDPH Facility Based Nurse Assistant Training Programs, as of February 13, 2026). A nursing home cannot charge aides it employs, or has offered a job, for state-approved training (42 CFR 483.152(c)). See Crystal Ridge Care Center CNA training on CareerFunded, our sister site for career training.
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 | 5.4 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.3 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.1 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.8 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Crystal Ridge Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.5% this home
No different from 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. 211 eligible stays.
11.2% 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. 210 eligible stays.
6.4% this home
No different from 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. 143 eligible stays.
75.9% 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. 87 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 147 residents counted.
2.8% 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. 147 residents counted.
90.4% 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. 73 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: EDELWEISS HOLDINGS, LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wolf, Salina | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Andrus, Roman | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/21/2023 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Hancock, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 |
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.