Home / California / Fullerton
330 W. Bastanchury Road, Fullerton, CA 92835 · Orange County · (714) 879-4511
99 certified beds, about 81 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 056151 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 11, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 30 health citations since October 2021 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 4.21 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.77 of those hours.
21.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to Eva Care Group, an affiliated group of 9 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 30 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment and services to maintain the highest practicable well-being for three of three sampled residents (Residents 1, 2, and 3). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 1, 2, and 3's change of conditions was monitored every shift for at least 72 hours. These failures had the potential to negatively affect the residents' health and well-being and risk of not providing the residents with appropriate and individualized care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was implemented for one of 21 final sampled residents (Resident 91). * The facility failed to implement the compressive care plan for Resident 91's right upper arm AV shunt (arteriovenous shunt is a direct connection between an artery and a vein that bypasses the normal network of small capillaries). The facility failed to ensure the facility staff did not obtain Resident 91's blood pressure on his right arm, the arm with his dialysis access site/ AV shunt). This failure had the potential to damage the AV shunt and/or increase the risk of blood clots for Resident 91.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services related to pressure injuries (areas of damaged skin caused by staying in one position for a long time which reduces blood flow to the area and causes the skin to die and develop a sore to promote wound healing) were provided to one of two final sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for pressure injuries. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 3 administered the wound treatment as per the physician's orders to Resident 2's right heel pressure injury. This had the potential for Resident 2 not receiving the appropriate care and services to promote healing of the pressure injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the environment remained free from accident hazards for one of one final sampled resident (Resident 43) reviewed for falls. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 43's post fall risk assessment was completed accurately to identify the resident's risk for fall and to prevent further falls and/or injuries. This failure posed the risk of not providing the necessary care to the resident to prevent further falls and/or injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary dialysis care and services for two of two final sampled residents (Residents 10 and 91) reviewed for dialysis care. * The facility failed to follow up on Resident 10's laboratory results for the laboratory tests obtained at the dialysis center. * The facility failed to ensure the facility staff did not obtain Resident 91's blood pressure on six occasions on the arm with his AV shunt. These failures had the potential for the residents to experience medical complications and negatively affect Residents 10 and 91's physical well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the appropriate treatment and services designed to help attain and maintain a resident's highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one of one final sampled resident (Resident 24) reviewed for dementia (group of conditions that cause a progressive decline in cognitive abilities, including memory, thinking and reasoning) care. * The facility failed to obtain the neurologist's progress notes and develop a dementia care plan for Resident 24. This failure had the potential for Resident 24 to not receive the appropriate treatment and services needed for her dementia.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the pharmaceutical services were provided to meet the needs for two of two final sampled residents (Residents 10 and 91) reviewed for dialysis care. * The facility failed to ensure accurate monitoring for the administration of Resident 10's blood pressure medications on the days Resident 10 had dialysis treatments. Resident 10's BP medications were sent with the resident to be administered by the dialysis nurse, however the facility's licensed nurses documented the administrations in Resident 10's MAR (Medication Administration Record). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 91's carvedilol (used to treat high blood pressure) and calcium acetate (supplement) medications were administered on time, in accordance with the facility's P&P. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was below 5%. The facility's medication error rate was 8%. Two of the three licensed nurses (LVN 1 and RN 1) observed were found to have made errors during the medication administration observation for two final sampled residents (Residents 33 and 54). * LVN 1 did not administer Resident 54's Creon (medication used to help digest food) medication with meals or food as ordered by the physician. * RN 1 did not administer Resident's 33's artificial tears ophthalmic solution (used for dry eye) as ordered by the physician. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents' health outcomes and posed the risk of possible complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmacy services to ensure proper storage and disposal of medications. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 78's medication was stored properly and safely. * The facility failed to ensure the opened package of the [NAME] collagen powder (sterile, medical grade wound dressing, manage wounds by providing a moist healing environment) medication was stored properly in Medication Cart A. * The facility failed to dispose of the expired supply from the Medication Storage Room A. These failures had the potential to alter the efficacy of the stored medications, infection risk to the residents, and result in inappropriate administration of the prescription medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the food safety and sanitation guidelines were followed in the kitchen. * The facility failed to ensure the blender used for meal was air dried prior to storing. * The facility failed to ensure the food preparation utensil was not clean and in good working condition. 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 interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the medical record was accurately maintained for one of 21 final sampled residents (Resident 91). * The facility documented (on three separate days) having obtained Resident 91's blood sugar, however, Resident 91 was out of the facility for his dialysis appointment, during the times the facility documented having obtained Resident 91's blood sugar. This failure resulted in Resident 91's medical record containing inaccurate information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement the infection control practices designed to provide the safe and sanitary environment, and help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infections. * The facility failed to ensure Kitchen Aide 1 performed proper hand hygiene after picking up trash off the floor. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 3 followed the infection control practices during the wound observation for Resident 2. LVN 3 placed Resident 2's right heel on the pillow after cleaning the wound. * The facility failed to ensure the facility staff performed hand hygiene after handling soiled linen. These failures posed the risk of the transmission of communicable diseases to the residents and employees throughout the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive plan of care for one of 21 final sampled residents (Resident 43) was revised to reflect the resident's current care needs and interventions. * The facility failed to revise Resident 43's long-term care plan addressing the resident's high risk for fall when Resident 43 sustained a fall on 8/7/25. This posed the risk of not providing Resident 43 with an individualized and person-centered care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the ice machine was cleaned and sanitized according to the manufacturer's instructions. This failure posed the risk of the residents contracting the illnesses from the ice served to them.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain the infection control practices to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infections. * The facility failed to plan and implement the control measures to prevent the growth of the Legionella (a bacteria that can cause a serious type of lung infection) in the facility's water system. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 2 performed hand hygiene in between glove change while providing wound care to Resident 486. These failures had the potential for the spread of infection in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to facilitate the residents' preferences and choices for food for three of 19 final sampled residents (Residents 22, 61, and 70). * Residents 22, 61, and 70 were not offered Korean breakfast. In addition, the Korean menu was posted in English. These failures posed the risk of the residents not being able to choose food items according to their ethnic preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record 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 failed to report an abuse allegation to the local law enforcement for one of one final sampled resident investigated for abuse (Resident 47). This failure had the potential for a delay in law enforcement response to the allegation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the low air loss mattress (pressure redistributing support surface) was set appropriately according to the resident's weight for one of two final sampled residents (Resident 486) reviewed for pressure ulcer (skin injury caused by prolonged pressure on an area of the body). This failure had the potential of Residents 486 not receiving the appropriate care and services to promote healing or prevent the development of the pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the physician order for oxygen therapy was followed for one of one final sampled resident reviewed for oxygen therapy (Resident 17). This failure had the potential for Resident 17 to not to receive appropriate respiratory care and posed the risk to negatively affect Resident 17's medical condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was below 5%. The facility's medication error rate was 7.41% (for two medication errors out of 27 total opportunities). * The facility failed to ensure LVN 1 administered Resident 63's medication as ordered. This failure had the potential to cause the negative outcomes to Resident 63.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of five final sampled residents obseved for the medication administration (Residents 28 and 62) were free from significant medication errors. * Residents 28 and 62's blood pressure medications were not held as ordered by the physician. These failures had the potential for the adverse outcomes to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to document the medication as refused for one nonsampled resident observed for the medication adminstration (Resident 83). This failure resulted in inaccurate medication administration records, which had the potential for the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to monitor and address the use of antibiotics when the resident's condition did not meet McGeer's criteria (a set of specific definitions to identify true infections in long term nursing facilities) for one of 19 final sample residents (Resident 24) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 73); and failed to identify if the residents' condition met the McGeer's criteria for infection for one nonsampled resident (Resident 29). These failures had the potential for antibiotics to be used when it was not indicated and the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the arbitration agreement was explained to one nonsampled resident (Resident 12). This failure posed the risk for the resident to not have the right to file an appeal if there was any issue of medical malpractice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility P&P review, and facility document review, the facility failed to maintain the infection control practices to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infections. * The facility failed to show documentation of the Legionella (a bacteria that can cause a serious type of lung infection) facility risk assessment and Legionella testing protocols. * The facility failed to ensure the trash bin and laundry hamper were available for used gloves and used washable gowns in Resident 39's room, who was on isolation precautions. * LVN 3 failed to perform hand hygiene while providing wound care to Resident 26. * LVN s 5 and 6 failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the food safety and sanitation requirements were met in the kitchen. * The facility failed to ensure labeling and dating of foods in the refrigerator and open storage area used for resident food. * The facility failed to air dry equipment. * The facility failed to ensure the kitchen utensils had a smooth cleanable surface. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses in a medically vulnerable resident population who consumed food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the bed remote control and call light were kept within reach for one of 19 final sampled residents (Resident 4). This failure resulted in Resident 4 not being able to use the bed remote control to lower the head of the bed and the call light for assistance when she was in pain, which had the potential to negatively impact the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide reasonable care for the protection of the resident's personal property from loss or theft for one of 19 sampled residents (Resident 39). Resident 39's cabinet was locked with a chain and a padlock; however, when she was transferred to another room, the facility failed to ensure the chain and padlock were placed in the resident's cabinet in the new room. This resulted in Resident 39 feeling upset and stressed about her personal belongings, which had the potential to negatively impact the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medications were administered in accordance with the standards of practice for one of the nonsampled resident (Resident 48). * Resident 48's polyethylene glycol (laxative medication) was not administered in a timely manner. This failure had the potential for medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the garbage and refuse were properly stored in two of two garbage dumpsters. The lid of the facility's garbage dumpsters were left open. This failure had the potential to harbor pests or rodents which carry diseases.
10 fire safety citations on file: 1 on September 11, 2025, 3 on September 6, 2024, 6 on October 29, 2021.
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) | 4.21 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.95 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.62 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.82 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 21.5% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 21.4% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.52 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 4.32 on weekdays and 3.95 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.02 in April to June 2025 to 4.21 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 | 4.21 | 0.77 | 4.32 | 3.95 | 0.2% | 0 of 90 | 81 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.22 | 0.78 | 4.30 | 4.02 | 1.0% | 0 of 92 | 80 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.13 | 0.75 | 4.23 | 3.87 | 1.1% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.02 | 0.69 | 4.11 | 3.81 | 1.0% | 0 of 91 | 88 |
| 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 Greenfield Care Center of Fullerton 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 | 11.2 | 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 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 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 | 8.6 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.1 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.1 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Greenfield Care Center of Fullerton, LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (38.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
38.0% 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. 100 eligible stays.
9.3% 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. 120 eligible stays.
7.3% 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. 77 eligible stays.
52.6% 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. 76 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 102 residents counted.
3.2% 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. 102 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 17 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: GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF FULLERTON, LLC. CMS links this home to Eva Care Group, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 3.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen, Jenq | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 06/01/2003 |
| Chen, Tze-Yun | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 02/20/2017 |
| Chen, Jenq | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2003 | |
| Padama, John | Corporate director | Individual | 08/02/2017 | |
| Padama, Anthony | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/11/2024 | |
| Song, Chaewon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/14/2010 | |
| Padama, Anthony | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/11/2024 | |
| Song, Chaewon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/14/2010 |
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.