Home / California / Covina
519 W. Badillo St., Covina, CA 91722 · Los Angeles County · (626) 915-5621
59 certified beds, about 44 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 055544 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 13, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 44 health citations since December 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 4.85 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.47 of those hours.
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 44 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice when facility nurses (in general) failed to monitor Resident 1's vital signs (objective, measurable, and essential physiological indicators, including temperature, pulse, respiration rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and often pain) after Resident 1 experienced a change in condition on 2/28/2026 at 6:21 PM.This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to experience a decline in health and wellbeing. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement individualized and resident-centered care plans (CP) for two of two sampled residents (Residents 26 and 53). These deficient practices had the potential for Residents 26 and 53 to not receive appropriate care, treatment, and/or services related to their specific needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen handwashing sink was draining. This failure had the potential to result in overflow of wastewater and lead to contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to obtain written informed consent for one of five sampled residents (Resident 53) for the use of psychotropic (any medication capable of affecting the mind, emotion, and behavior) medication. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 53 not receiving adequate information regarding psychotropic medications necessary to make an informed health care decision.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the order for lorazepam (a medication used for anxiety- a feeling of fear, dread, or uneasiness) as needed (PRN) was limited to a 14-day duration for one of five sampled residents (Resident 5). This deficient practice had the potential to result in unnecessary or prolonged use of lorazepam that could lead to Resident 5 experiencing adverse effects (unwanted, uncomfortable, or dangerous effects of a drug) related to medication therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete one of three sampled residents (Resident 41) quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment and care screening tool). This failure had the potential to result in not meeting the resident's care needs and/or identifying a change in the resident's physical and mental care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident's (Resident 43), Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 12/24/2025 accurately documented the resident's dialysis (a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidneys have failed) treatment. This failure had the potential to result in delay of treatment and inaccurate plan of care and interventions for Resident 43.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 43)'s care plan (CP) was revised to address 1,000 milliliters (ml- unit of measurement) fluid restriction. This failure had the potential to place Resident 43 at risk for fluid overload and other related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the suprapubic catheter (a soft tube inserted directly into the bladder through a small incision to drain urine into a bag) bag was not touching the floor for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice resulted in contamination of Resident 1's care equipment and placed the resident at risk of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer continuous oxygen therapy (treatment that provides supplemental, or extra, oxygen) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 15) according to accepted standards of clinical practice and in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Administration. This deficient practice placed Resident 15 at risk for shortness of breath and/or hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the body tissues) which could lead to serious complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure hemodialysis (HD - a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed) device access dressing was removed as ordered by the physician for one of one sampled resident (Resident 43). This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 43 to develop complications related to HD device access.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 19) was properly identified during Resident 19's medication administration. This failure had the potential to result in medication errors from Resident 19 receiving incorrect medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and follow infection prevention procedures to prevent the transmission of infectious organisms for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) by failing to wear required personal protective equipment (PPE, equipment that protects people from injury or illness in hazardous environments) while providing care to Resident 1 who was on Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP, precautions that involve using a glove and gown during high-contact resident care activity for residents who are colonized or infected with multidrug-resistant organisms [MDRO, bacteria that is resistant to many types of antibiotics] and those at a higher risk of developing a MDRO, such as, residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staffing information on the Nurse Staffing Sheet (posted information that contains the facility's current resident census and total number and actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff) was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. This deficient practice had the potential to mislead the residents and visitors that may affect the quality of nursing care provided to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of measurement) per resident area for eighteen (18) out of twenty-four (24) resident rooms (Rooms 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 122). This deficient practice had the potential to impact the ability to provide safe nursing care and privacy to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 1), received appropriate treatment to prevent further decrease in Resident 1's range of motion (ROM, the full movement potential of a joint or body part) in Resident 1's left shoulder. This failure resulted in Resident 1 experiencing pain and joint stiffness on Resident 1's left shouder due to a decrease in range of motion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to incorporate Assessments and Care Planning Goals and Objectives in the Care Plans that lead to the residents' highest obtainable level of independence for one of five residents (Resident 1). Resident 1's care plan did not include Resident 1's behavior of crawling on the floor. This failure result in no nursing interventions for Resident 1's behavior of crawling on the floor and placed Resident 1 at risk for not reaching Resident 1's highest obtainable level of independence.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its Policy and Procedure, titled Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1) when: 1. Resident 1 was not assessed for injury whenever staff (in general) found Resident 1 on floor crawling on the floor mats (a padded cushion placed on the floor next to the bed to help reduce injuries from a fall) as indicated in Resident 1's fall risk care plan. 2. Resident 1's care plan did not include Resident 1's behavior of crawling on the floor. 3. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 did not document Resident 1's wander guard trial in Resident 1's medical record. This failure placed Resident 1 at risk for harm and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its Policy and Procedure titled, Charting and Documentation, for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1) when: Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) did not document Resident 1's wander guard trial in Resident 1's medical record. This failure result in incomplete documentation for Resident 1 and placed Resident 1's inter disciplinary team at risk for miscommunication regarding the Resident 1's condition and response to care. Cross Reference:
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow a physician's order to collect a stool sample for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice had the potential for a delay of care and services to Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for three of three sampled residents (Residents 13, 17 and 35). These deficient practices had the potential for the residents not to receive necessary care or receive delayed services to meet the residents' needs that could result in a fall or injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement its Policy and Procedure (P&P) on the use of side rails/bed rails (adjustable metal or rigid plastic bars attached to the bed) for three of three sampled residents (Residents 21, 33 and 48) by failing to: a. (1). Ensure appropriate alternative interventions were attempted before the installation of side rails for Resident 21. (2). Assess Resident 21 for risk of entrapment (an event in which a resident is caught, trapped, or entangled in the space in or about the bed rail) and obtained an informed consent to review the risks and benefits prior to installing bed rails. b. Ensure appropriate alternative interventions were attempted and did not meet the needs of Resident 33 before the installation of side rails. c. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow proper food handling practices by failing to ensure food items were dated when it was first opened in one of two facility refrigerators. This deficient practice had the potential risk for food borne illnesses (infections caused by ingesting contaminated food or beverages) to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 21) was informed in advance, of the risks and benefits of a psychoactive medication (a drug that changes brain function and results in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, or behavior). This failure violated the residents' right to make an informed decision regarding the use of a psychoactive medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool) reflected an accurate assessment for one of one resident (Resident 51). This failure resulted in inaccurate reporting to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS, a federal agency that administers the Medicare program and works with state governments to administer the Medicaid and health insurance portability standards) agency and had the potential for Resident 51 not to receive interventions to address the resident's specific care concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to utilize bilateral landing mats as ordered, for one of three sampled residents (Resident 13) who had a history of falls. This deficient practice had the potential to result in serious consequences that may accompany a fall for Resident 13.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 40) received two liters of oxygen as needed according to physician's order and monitor the resident's oxygen usage in accordance with professional standards of practice. This deficient practice had the potential to cause complications associated with oxygen therapy for Resident 40.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases for a resident on hemodialysis (a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed) with indwelling medical device placed on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, infection control measures used to prevent the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDROs] in healthcare settings) for one of six sampled residents (Resident 44). This failure had the potential to expose Resident 44 to infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet the 80 square feet (sq. ft., a unit area of measurement) per resident in multiple resident bedrooms requirement for 18 of 24 resident rooms (Rooms 101,103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 122) in the facility. This failure had the potential to affect residents' privacy and result in the residents not having adequate space for nursing care and emergency services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement fall intervention to utilize bilateral landing mats for two of two sampled residents (Resident 15 and Resident 17) who had history of falls as indicated in residents care plan titled Fall Risk. These deficient practices had the potential to result in serious consequences like fractures (break in the bone) and bleeding that may accompany with falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer oxygen therapy (treatment that provides supplemental oxygen) for three of three sampled residents (Residents 199, 149 and 8) according to standards of practice and with the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Therapy. a. Resident 199 did not receive two liters of oxygen as ordered by the physician. b. Resident 149 received continuous oxygen therapy without a physician's order. c. Resident 8 received continuous oxygen therapy without a physician's order. These deficient practices placed Residents 199, 149 and 8 at risk for shortness of breath and/or hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the body tissues) which can lead to serious complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide bilateral handsocks (a type of glove that covers the hands) for one of two sampled residents (Resident 8) in accordance with the physician's order. This deficient practice had the potential to affect Resident 1's self-esteem (self-worth) and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light (an alerting device for staff to assist a resident in need) was within reach for one of one sampled resident (Resident 42). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 42 not receiving care and assistance in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure to provide information of advance care planning (a process of communication between individuals and their healthcare agents to understand, reflect on, discuss, and plan for future healthcare decisions for a time when individuals are not able to make their own healthcare decisions.) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 42). This deficient practice had the potential for facility staff to provide treatment against the resident's will.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and home like environment for one of one sampled resident (Resident 42). This failure had the potential to result in Resident 42 not residing in a comfortable environment that could affect Resident 42's quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized a person-centered plan of care (details why a person is receiving care, assessed health or care needs, medical history, personal details, expected and aimed outcomes, and what care and support will be delivered, how, when and by whom) with measurable objectives and interventions to meet the residents' needs for one of one sampled resident (Resident 5) as indicated in the facility's Policy and Procedure, titled Care Plans, Comprehensive. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 5 not to receive appropriate care, treatment and/or services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to revise a plan of care for one of one sampled resident (Resident 15), who sustained a fall from his bed on 9/25/2023 as indicated in the facility's policy Care Plans, Comprehensive. This deficient practice had the potential to place Resident 15 at risk for recurrent falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an effective communication method for one of one non-English speaking sampled resident (Resident 18). This failure had the potential for Resident 18 to not receive the necessary care and services due to the lack of effective communication aids.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to assign a designated staff to coordinate with hospice care (end of life care) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 42). This failure had the potential for Resident 42 to not receive individualized compassionate care that could affect Resident 42's quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the physician's order to set up Gastrostomy tube (G-tube, a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal wall incision for administration of food, fluids, and medications) feeding of Fibersource HN (nutritionally complete tube feeding formula) via pump (a machine used to infuse nutrition formula through G-Tube to the stomach) for one of four sampled residents with tube feeding (Resident 28). This failure had the potential to result in weight loss and malnutrition for Resident 28 and could affect Resident 28's health condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a performance evaluation for at least once every 12 months for one of two sampled Certified Nursing Assistants 3 (CNA 3). This failure had the potential for the facility to not be aware of CNA 3's competency skills and techniques and miss the opportunity to provide the necessary in-service education specific to CNA 3's performance which could negatively affect the provision of care to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon the pharmacist's monthly medication regimen review (MRR, a thorough evaluation of the medication regimen of a resident, with the goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse consequences associated with medication) recommendation to obtain an informed consent for the use of Venlafaxine (medication used to treat depression, anxiety disorder and panic disorder) for one of five sampled residents (Resident 38) on psychotropic medication (medication that affects brain activities associated with mental process and behavior). This failure had the potential to result in Resident 38 receiving an unnecessary medication and could prevent Resident 38 from maintaining the resident's highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the nasal cannula (NC, small flexible tube with two prongs that sit inside the nostrils to deliver supplemental oxygen) was labeled and dated, the tubing was not touching the floor, and the NC prongs were not touching the oxygen humidifier (device used to provide moistened oxygen) when not in use for one of three sampled residents (Resident 20) on oxygen therapy in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure titled, Oxygen Therapy. This deficient practice had the potential to result in an increased risk of spread of infection to the residents, staff, and other visitors in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet the 80 square feet (sq. ft., a unit area of measurement) per resident in multiple resident bedrooms requirement for 18 of 24 resident rooms (Rooms 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 122) in the facility. This failure had the potential to affect residents' privacy and result in the residents not having adequate space for nursing care and emergency services.
11 fire safety citations on file: 7 on February 13, 2026, 2 on December 20, 2024, 2 on December 22, 2023.
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) | 4.85 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.47 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.73 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.09 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.29 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.74 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 4.89 on weekdays and 4.73 on weekends, 3% 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 4.02 in April to June 2025 to 4.85 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 | 4.85 | 0.47 | 4.89 | 4.73 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 44 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.29 | 0.03 | 2.35 | 2.16 | 0.0% | 74 of 92 | 53 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.59 | 0.39 | 4.74 | 4.19 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 47 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.02 | 0.31 | 4.11 | 3.80 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 50 |
| 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 | 19.3 | 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 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 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 | 5.1 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.0 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.8 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Harvard Creek Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.1% 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. 87 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 127 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 95 eligible stays.
62.5% 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. 80 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. 121 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. 121 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. 10 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: HARVARD CREEK POST ACUTE LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bhatia, Sona | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 02/13/2019 |
| Christian, Canny | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 02/13/2019 |
| Bhatia, Sona | Corporate director | Individual | 02/13/2019 | |
| Christian, Canny | Corporate director | Individual | 02/13/2019 | |
| Bhatia, Sona | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/13/2019 | |
| Christian, Canny | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/13/2019 | |
| Christian, Canny | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2019 | |
| Padaong, Neveline | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2020 |
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.