Home / California / Walnut Creek
1449 Ygnacio Valley Road, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 · Contra Costa County · (925) 939-5820
99 certified beds, about 77 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1974
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 056399 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 5, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 25 health citations since November 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 3.96 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.83 of those hours.
30.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to Aspen Skilled Healthcare, an affiliated group of 35 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 25 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure one of one ice machines was clean. This failure practice could be result in illnesses and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one of two sample selected residents (Resident 52) was treated with dignity, when Resident 52's urine bag was not covered by a privacy bag. This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 52 feeling embarrassed, humiliated, or disrespected, which can negatively impact Resident 52's mental and emotional well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility did not revise the care plan for two of two sample selected residents (Resident 19 and 52) with new diagnoses, when Residents 19, and 52 were diagnosed with depression and staff did not develop a care plan for depression. This failure in practice had the potential to result in inadequate care and support, potentially worsening their mental health condition, experiencing emotional distress, social withdrawal, and other negative health outcomes, and compromise to their overall well-being and quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good grooming to one of three sampled residents (Resident 50) when she did not receive nail care. This failure had the potential for development of skin injuries and infection for Resident 50. During a review of Resident 50's admission Record, undated, the admission Record indicated Resident 50 was admitted to the facility in March 2025 with diagnoses that included diabetes, dementia, and heart failure. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 181) was monitored for side effects of divalproex sodium (Depakote -a mood stabilizing medication) which was given to Resident 181 in error. This failure exposed Resident 181 to potentially serious adverse effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one of five sampled residents (Resident 181) was not given unnecessary psychoactive (controls mood and behavior) medication when Resident 181 was given divalproex sodium (Depakote, a mood stabilizer) without appropriate indications for use. This failure resulted in Resident 181 receiving psychoactive medication without actual psychiatric diagnoses and unnecessarily exposed her to serious adverse side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 181) was free from significant medication error when Resident 181 was administered divalproex sodium (Depakote, a psychoactive medication that controls mood and behavior) in error 30 times. This failure resulted in Resident 181 to receive psychoactive medication in error. This failure also exposed Resident 181 to serious health complications and/or jeopardized her safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper labeling and storage of medication when the following was noted: 1. Two multi-dose insulin pens for Residents 228 and 40 had no open and beyond use date (BUD-the date after which a medication should not be used) label. 2. Thirteen expired nasal swabs were kept with ready to use medications in medication storage area. This failure had the potential to result in the Residents 228 and 40 receiving ineffective medication doses and Residents receiving abnormal nasal swab test results which could lead to more health issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, facility did not ensure sanitary and comfortable rooms for two of two sample selected residents (Resident 61 and 52), when Resident 61 and 52's rooms (Room numbers 36 and 38) were not clean with brown spots on various surfaces, and the floors were sticky and had food particles scattered around. This failure in practice could have potentially resulted an environment conducive to the growth of bacteria, mold, and other harmful microorganisms resulting in infections and other health issues for residents, and emotional distress and discomfort, leading to a decline in mental health and overall satisfaction with the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sample selected residents (Resident 1) had a safe and orderly discharge from the facility, when the facility discharged Resident 1 to home without preparation and orientation to the discharge and did not provide complete discharge medication for Resident 1. This failure resulted in Resident 1 suffering from pain and did not have pain medication as ordered by the physician (MD).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services for hygiene and bathing for one of three sample selected residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 did not receive a shower as scheduled by the facility. This failure resulted in Resident 1 being uncomfortable and complained about not receiving the services that she was supposed to receive from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for two of 31 sample selected residents (Residents 10 and 11), when: 1. Resident 11 did not receive the oxygen rate based on physician order. 2. Resident 10's oxygen tube was not replaced weekly and the oxygen's humidifier was not replaced when it was empty. These deficient practices had the potential to result in oxygen toxicity for Resident 11 and for Resident 10 to potentially develop respiratory complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow posted menu when: 1. On 11/28/23, during lunch meal: - Pot stickers were not served as a garnish according to the menu. - Salad plates were provided which was not on the menu. 2. Resident 47 and Resident 140 stated menu was not routinely followed as listed. These failures had the potential for served meals to not meet the nutritional needs of the residents who received food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare pureed (cooked food that has been ground, pressed, and blended to a consistency of creamy paste) food designed to meet the needs of residents with a specialized diet. This failure had the potential to result in aspiration and choking (inhaling of food and drinks) of medically compromised residents who received pureed food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food under sanitary conditions when: 1. In the kitchen pantry, multiple opened gallon containers of liquid condiments did not have opened dates. 2. Freezer 1 contained three sealed boxes of meat stored without labels. 3. A dietary staff entered the kitchen without a hairnet. 4. Ice machine interior was unclean. 5. Ice Machine Room door was left open and accessible to unauthorized persons. 6. Resident Food Refrigerator inside Station 1 Medication Room was not cleaned routinely and freezer compartment at Station 1, had ice build-up. These failures had the potential to result in food contamination and resident foodborne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (Resident 234) of 31 sample selected residents when Registered Nurse (RN) 1 did not follow infection control standards during wound care for Resident 234. This failure had the potential to result in wound complications and infection for Resident 234.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of four sampled resident (Resident 70) on an antipsychotic (medication that treats several kinds of mental health conditions) was free from unnecessary drugs when the interdisciplinary team did not evaluate Resident 20's use of a PRN (as needed) for Seroquel's (antipsychotic) appropriateness, adequate clinical rational and indication for continued usage. This failure had the potential for Resident 70 to receive unnecessary drugs and suffer adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure for one (Resident 14) of eight sampled residents, the quarterly minimum data set (MDS, a resident assessment instrument used to identify resident care problems to be addressed in an individualized care plan.) assessment was completed within the deadline determined by the assessment reference date (ARD, an endpoint for observation periods for MDS assessment data entry). This failure had the potential to delay Resident 14's individualized care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure for three (Residents 14, 67, 36) of eight sampled residents, the minimum data set (MDS, a resident assessment instrument used to identify resident care problems to be addressed in an individualized care plan.) assessments were submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the deadlines determined by the assessment reference date (ARD, an endpoint for observation periods for MDS assessment data entry) when, 1. Resident 14's quarterly MDS assessment was not completed and transmitted, 2. Resident 67's discharge assessment was not completed and transmitted, and 3. Resident 36's discharge assessment was completed 26 calendar days past the ARD and not transmitted. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the right of privacy of confidential information for three of 28 sampled residents (Residents 73B, 50, 19) when personal care instructions were posted on the walls of the residents' shared rooms. These failures had the potential to result in emotional distress for Residents 19, 50, and 73B from public disclosure of personal information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions when: 1. Refrigerator 1 had multiple undated food items and repackaged food in plastic bags labeled with use-by dates more than three days in the future. 2. Refrigerator 2 had a cracked pasteurized egg left inside the refrigerator and an open carton of liquid whole eggs without an opened-on date. 3. Refrigerator 3 had a sealed bag of mixed green lettuce that had no label or use-by date. 4. Undated and unlabeled food items were stored in a large clear container. 5. The holder for the can opener in the kitchen work area was covered with brownish-yellow-colored sticky material around the can opener rest. These failures had the potential for residents to develop food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Clean the area around the enteral feeding pump (a pump used to deliver liquid nutrition directly into the stomach or intestines through a tube inserted into the nose, mouth, or a surgical opening directly into the gastrointestinal tract) for one (Resident 62) of 18 sampled residents. 2. Clean a resident walker stored in a common hallway. 3. Clean a bedside commode stored in a common hallway. These failures had the potential to result in infection and/or the spread of infection for Resident 62, and other residents and visitors in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide maintenance services to maintain a clean, orderly, and comfortable environment for two of 28 sampled residents (Resident 50 and Resident 19) when: 1. Resident 50's dresser had no top drawer. 2. Resident 19's floor had multiple scattered black scratches and dimples on the surface of the floor and next to the resident's bed were sticky, brown-colored spots on the floor. This failure had the potential to decrease the comfort and well-being of Resident 50 and Resident 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon an irregularity identified by the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) during the monthly medication regimen review (MRR) for one of 28 sampled residents (Residents 50) when the facility delayed scheduling Resident 50's Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale test (AIMS, a 12-item clinician rated scale of involuntary movements of various areas of the patient's body) for one month. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 50 having undiagnosed and untreated adverse side effects from prescribed medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to offer and/or provide pneumococcal vaccine (a vaccination to prevent pneumonia, a lung infection which can cause difficulty breathing and death) to one (Resident 3) of five sampled residents. This failure had the potential for Resident 3 to develop and spread pneumonia.
30 fire safety citations on file: 5 on June 5, 2025, 9 on November 30, 2023, 16 on November 4, 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) | 3.96 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.83 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.85 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.57 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.57 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 30.8% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 29.4% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.19 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 4.01 on weekdays and 3.85 on weekends, 4% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.90 in April to June 2025 to 3.96 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 | 3.96 | 0.83 | 4.01 | 3.85 | 1.3% | 0 of 90 | 77 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.01 | 0.86 | 4.08 | 3.82 | 1.5% | 0 of 92 | 76 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.88 | 0.86 | 3.94 | 3.72 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.90 | 0.80 | 3.95 | 3.77 | 0.4% | 0 of 91 | 79 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| California, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.36 | 0.59 | 4.52 | 3.97 | 2.3% | 0.5% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| California, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.90 | $22.04 to $26.35 | 110,060 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.34 | $35.98 to $45.06 | 82,850 |
| Registered nurses | $67.44 | $58.87 to $83.25 | 338,940 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | California | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.8 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.3 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.0 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.0 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 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 La Casa Via Transitional Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (58.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.9% this home
Better 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. 365 eligible stays.
9.9% 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. 362 eligible stays.
5.9% 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. 216 eligible stays.
63.5% 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. 167 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. 238 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 237 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 176 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: AWCY LLC. CMS links this home to Aspen Skilled Healthcare, a group of 35 nursing homes averaging 3.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awcy LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 03/05/2019 | |
| Aspen Skilled Healthcare Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/05/2019 | |
| Sequoia Healthcare Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Skbm LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/05/2019 | |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/05/2019 | |
| Bradshaw, Peter | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/07/2023 | |
| Elsner, Eric | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/05/2019 | |
| Kirkwood, Jared | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/05/2019 | |
| Orgill, Craig | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/05/2019 | |
| Parti, Rajesh | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/05/2019 | |
| Parti, Shruty | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/05/2019 | |
| Paxman, Marcus | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Rawe, Colton | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Awcy LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/05/2019 | |
| Davis, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2017 | |
| Dhaliwal, Tanveer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Rawe, Colton | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Shaikh, Zahid | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2017 | |
| Aspen Healthcare Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Awcy LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/05/2019 | |
| East West Bank | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/05/2019 | |
| Moss Adams LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/05/2019 | |
| Sequoia Healthcare Group LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Skbm LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/17/2025 | |
| Wells Fargo Bank, National Association | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/05/2019 | |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Brady, Vern | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Case, Ryan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Davis, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2017 | |
| Dhaliwal, Tanveer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Jurado, Frank | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Paxman, Marcus | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Rawe, Colton | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Shaikh, Zahid | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2017 |
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.