Home / California / Visalia
4444 West Meadow, Visalia, CA 93277 · Tulare County · (559) 627-1241
98 certified beds, about 93 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1980
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 555125 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 22, 2025, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 54 health citations since July 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 4.03 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.25 of those hours.
36.4% 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 54 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified when one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) medication was not administered per physician's orders. This failure resulted in Resident 1 not receiving enoxaparin sodium (medication used to prevent blood clots) and had the potential for Resident 1 to experience health complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report allegations of physical abuse to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) within 24 hours for three of four sampled residents (Resident 1, Resident 2, and Resident 3). This failure had the potential for abuse allegations not being investigated and residents experiencing continued physical abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer, obtain, and complete advance directives (AD- a written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment when one is unable to make decisions for themselves) for 10 of 26 sampled residents (Resident 14, Resident 20, Resident 12, Resident 75, Resident 5, Resident 142, Resident 29, Resident 86, Resident 71, and Resident 243). This failure had the potential to result in a failure to provide care in accordance with the resident's treatment wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure activities of interest were provided for four of 11 sampled residents (Resident 86, Resident 14, Resident 56, and Resident 29). This failure had the potential to affect Resident 86, Resident 14, Resident 56, and Resident 29's physical, mental, social, emotional health and well-being, which could diminish quality of life and /or potentially cause depression (feeling of sadness).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) worked at least eight hours a day, seven days a week on 11 of 21 sampled days. This failure had the potential to negatively affect residents care, clinical outcomes, and assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to have an effective Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) performance evaluation (PE- a process to give employees feedback on their job performance) and annual in-service program when: 1. Three of six sampled CNA's (CNA 1, CNA 3,and CNA 4) had not received 12 hours of annual in-service education. This failure had the potential to result in CNA's not having appropriate knowledge to care for residents. 2. Two of eight sampled CNAs (CNA 1, CNA 2, CNA 3) had not received a performance evaluation every 12 months. This failure had the potential for the facility to not be able to validate the CNA's had the knowledge and skills to perform their job duties, which could negativly affect resident care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Honor two of 25 sampled residents (Resident 31, Resident 73) food preferences. 2. Follow physician diet orders for one of 25 sampled residents (Resident 59). These failures had the potential to result in a decreased oral intake and unwanted weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Opened Food items were labeled with an open date. 2. Dented cans were properly discarded. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illness (illness caused by the ingestion of contaminated food or beverages) for at-risk vulnerable residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented when: 1. Three large barrels containing residents' clean personal laundry were stored in the dirty area of the laundry room. 2. One of one sampled Housekeeper (HSK 1) did not perform hand hygiene. These failures had the potential to spread infectious diseases to all residents, visitors, and staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Maintain an effective antibiotic stewardship (efforts to ensure that antibiotics are used only when necessary and appropriate) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 73) when the attending physician (MD) 1 was not notified of the results of the urine culture, including the susceptibility/sensitivity (determines how well a microbe [like bacteria or fungi] responds to a specific antimicrobial drug [antibiotic]) results. This failure resulted in Resident 73 not receiving the antibiotic that had the highest efficacy for the treatment of a urinary tract infection (UTI). 2. Follow the facility's policy and procedure on Antibiotic Stewardship when MD 1 did not evaluate one of one sampled resident (Resident 73) within 72 hours after ordering the antibiotic via telephone. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide in-service education on Covid-19 (severe respiratory illness) for 143 of 186 total staff. This failure had the potential for staff not knowing how to prevent the spread of Covid-19 in the event of a pandemic (widespread outbreak of an infectious disease) affecting all residents, staff, and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an ambient (surrounding air) temperature for three of six sampled resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER] A/B, room [ROOM NUMBER] A/B, room [ROOM NUMBER] A/B). This failure resulted in the residents feeling warm and uncomfortable in their respective rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure : 1. Six of Six sampled Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA 3, CNA 1, CNA 2, CNA 5, CNA 6 and CNA 4) attended a minimum of five hours of annual dementia (a general term for the loss of memory, language, and reasoning skills) care training. This failure had the potential for CNAs to not have the knowledge and skills on how to meet the care needs of residents with dementia. 2. One of five sampled CNA's (CNA 3) received annual abuse prevention training. This failure had the potential for CNA 3 to not have the knowledge and skills on how to recognize and report abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure Informed Consent (IC, a process in which a healthcare professional educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or medication) for one of seven sampled resident (Resident 5's) Mirtazapine (Remeron-antidepressant medication) 15 milligrams (mg) was signed by the physician prior to medication administration. This failure had the potential to result in adverse consequence when the physician had not given the resident sufficient information about the drug, which may have negative effect on the resident. 2. Have accurate informed consent for a psychotropic (medication to treat mental disorders) medication for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 27). This failure had the potential for Resident 27 to not be aware of the risks and benefits of taking psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess the effectiveness of the plan of care for the use of a communication board (a visual aid that facilitates communication between patients and their care team) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 29). This failure resulted in the facility not understanding, identifying, and determining Resident 29's needs and the potential to deprive her of maintaining the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to act on a recommendation from the pharmacy consultant (a professional responsible for reviewing each resident's medication profile monthly to identify and report changes) for one of 10 sampled residents (Resident 71). This failure had the potential to result in Resident 71 not receiving a needed medication and possibly leading to medical complications that could diminish quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for two of 38 sampled residents (Resident 3 and Resident 142) when the Nursing Weekly Summary (NWS) did not reflect the residents' skin condition, including toes and toenails. This failure resulted in Resident 3 and Resident 142's medical records to be incomplete and inaccurate, which could lead to misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, and delay in care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure maintenance staff conducted bed rail risk assessments to include evaluation of the bed and measurements of siderails and potential bed entrapment zones for two of two newly admitted sampled residents (Resident 32 and Resident 142). This failure had the potential to place Resident 32 and Resident 142 at risk for harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a fall assessment was accurate for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential for staff to be unaware of Resident 1's risk for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure when staff in-service training records were incomplete. This failure resulted in incomplete training records and the potential for staff to be inadequately trained to care for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three of three sampled staff Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA 1), Registered Nurse (RN 1), and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1), were aware of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP-infection control measures used to reduce the spread of infection) protocol (blue heart placed above the bed of the affected resident) used to identify the residents requiring staff to wear PPE while providing care. This failure resulted in staff being unaware of which resident required EBP.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2) Responsible Representative (RR 2 and RR 3) were notified and informed of changes made with the existing Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST-a focused type of advance directive used in critical situations where immediate medical decisions are needed). This failure resulted in Resident 1 being intubated (involves inserting a plastic tube into the airway to help breath) without consent.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for two of two sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2). This failure had the potential for Resident 1 and Resident 2 to have unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure on: 1. Surveillance for Infections when the monthly reports did not contain the complete information required. 2. Monitoring Compliance with Infection Control when the facility did not complete the hand hygiene monitoring. These failures had the potential to result in a facility-wide infection outbreak affecting all residents, staff, and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide for three of eight sampled residents (Resident 14, Resident 62, Resident 55) a home-like environment when: 1. Resident 14's bathroom wall paint was peeled off. 2. Water temperature in the shower rooms were turning cold during showers. These failures had the potential to negatively affect residents' quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide prompt efforts to act on and resolve grievances for two of seven sampled residents (Resident 54 and Resident 70). This failure resulted in residents experiencing frustrations and had the potential to affect their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure manufacturers guidelines were followed for use of low air loss (LAL) mattresses (mattress used for prevention of pressure injuries) for five of 14 sampled residents (Resident 84, Resident 51, Resident 347, Resident 11, and Resident 246). This failure had the potential to result in developing new or worsening of pressure injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assist three of three sampled residents (Resident 19, Resident 44 and Resident 55) to receive dental services. This failure had the potential for these residents to have difficulty chewing food and maintaining nutritional needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items in the storage area were labeled and dated. This failure had the potential to result in foodborne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a handrail was firmly secured and in good repair. This failure had the potential to expose residents and visitors to injuries or accidents as a result of a broken handrail.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure titled, Dignity, for one of two sampled residents (Resident 299), when a urine collection bag (a bag used to collect urine that is drained from the bladder) was not covered with a dignity bag. This failure had the potential to cause Resident 299 embarrassment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Transfer or Discharge Notice, when the facility did not send a notice of transfer to the Ombudsman (representatives who assist resident in long-term care facilities with issues related to day-to-day care, health, safety, and personal preferences) for two of five sampled residents (Resident 59 and Resident 17). This failure had the potential to result in residents being discharged inappropriately and not having an advocate who could inform them of their admission, transfer, and discharge rights and options.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a plan of care for two of two sampled residents (Resident 29, Resident 19) when: 1. Resident 29's plan of care did not include nail care. 2. Ensure an accurate assessment to reflect Resident 19's loose fitting dentures. These failures resulted in residents not receiving the services they needed which had the potential for negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure titled, Administering Medications when: 1. The Director of Nursing of Nursing (DON) did not check the intravenous (IV-given inside of a vein) antibiotic (medication used to treat bacterial infection) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 92). 2. Resident 92' IV antibiotic were not administered at the right time according to physician's order. These failures had the potential for Resident 92 to recieve the wrong medication with potential to result in adverse health outcomes
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 19 sampled residents (Resident 29) received nail care. This failure had the potential to cause injury to Resident 29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure one of eight sampled residents (Resident 14) physician's order for treatment was followed. This failure had the potential for delaying Resident 14's wound healing and result in infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Storage, when: 1. Expired medication was not removed from one of three sampled medication refrigerators (Refrigerator C). 2. Diabetic testing strips (strips used to test blood sugar) were not labeled with the date they were opened on one of two sampled medication carts (D Hall Cart). 3. Medication refrigerator temperature was not monitored every shift for three of three sampled medication refrigerators (Refrigerator A, Refrigerator B, and Refrigerator C). These failures had the potential to result in unintended, harmful, or undesirable health outcomes to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 36)'s diet texture was followed according to the physician's order. This failure had the potential for Resident 36 to experience choking due to incorrect food texture.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an effective antibiotic stewardship program when one of six sampled residents (Resident 86) was reviewed and monitored for the use of an antibiotic. This failure had the potential for Resident 86 to continually take inappropriate or unnecessary antibiotic and may result in infections not treated appropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the dietary staff failed to follow proper sanitation and safe food handling practices when: 1. Ensuring the inside of two clean plate covers were not touching DS uniform while waiting to cover the lunch plates. 2. Performing handwashing and changing gloves prior to preparing a grilled cheese sandwich during tray line. These failures had the potential to result in foodborne illnesses for residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse were properly collected and disposed in a safe and efficient manner. This failure had the potential to result in harboring, feeding, and attracting pests and vermin.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Handle, store, process linens in a safe and sanitary method to prevent the spread of infection. 2. Store clean briefs appropriately. 3. Maintain a safe and sanitary environment in resident bathroom. 4. Two housekeeping staff failed to follow manufactures contact times for disinfectant. These failures had the potential to spread communicable diseases and infection to the facility's residents, staff, and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to provide an effective pest control program. This failure had the potential to spread disease to residents, staff, and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS- standardized screening assessment tool) were completed and transmitted within the required time frame for three of 24 sampled residents (Resident 1, Resident 3, and Resident 16). This failure had the potential to negatively affect the provision of necessary care and services for the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) for the reconciliation of controlled substances (a drug subject to special handling, storage, and disposal because of its potential for abuse or addiction) for one of 24 residents (Resident 321). This failure had the potential for the potential for loss or diversion of controlled substances.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Lock controlled substances in one of five medication carts. This failure had the potential to result in medication loss. 2. Have the correct label on a bag that corresponded to the medication inside for one of 24 sampled residents (Resident 63). This failure had the potential for medication administration errors resulting in significant harm to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of five sampled residents (Resident 24 and Resident 50) were offered and administered the pneumococcal vaccine (vaccines to prevent severe pneumococcal disease) in a manner consistent with professional standards and guidance from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation. This failure had the potential to increase potential transmission of pneumonia for Resident 24 and Resident 50.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized screening assessment tool) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 68). This failure had the potential to negatively affect the provision of necessary care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for three of 24 sampled residents (Resident 317, Resident 28, and Resident 59) This failure had the potential for Resident 317's and Resident 28's grooming and personal hygiene needs to go unmet and placed Resident 59 at risk for injury.
Inspectors wroteSurveyor: [NAME], [NAME] Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 24 sampled residents (Resident 63 and Resident 28), received necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene. This failure had the potential to result in a negative impact tot he resident's quality of life and self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 24 sampled residents (Resident 32) received audiology (hearing) services. This failure had the potential for Resident 32 to have unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the consultant pharmacist failed to identify and make recommendations to attempt a gradual dose reduction of an antipsychotic drug (classification of drugs used to treat mental disorders) for one of 24 sampled residents (Resident 32). This failure had the potential to result in decreased quality of life, adverse consequences, and significant, irreversible side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction of an antipsychotic drug (classification of drugs used to mental disorders) for one of 24 sampled residents (Resident 32). This failure had the potential to result in decreased quality of life, adverse consequences, and significant, irreversible side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication error rate was five percent or less when four medication errors were observed out of 42 medication administration opportunities, which yielded a medication error rate of 9.52 percent. These failures had the potential for residents not to receive the therapeutic effects of the medications.
27 fire safety citations on file: 6 on May 22, 2025, 5 on October 26, 2023, 16 on July 23, 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) | 4.03 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.25 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.72 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.75 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.03 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.4% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.73 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 4.15 on weekdays and 3.72 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.20 in April to June 2025 to 4.03 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 | 4.03 | 0.25 | 4.15 | 3.72 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 93 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.00 | 0.22 | 4.11 | 3.71 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 89 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.00 | 0.18 | 4.13 | 3.67 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.20 | 0.16 | 4.29 | 3.96 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 92 |
| 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 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.2 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.9 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.8 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Linwood Meadows Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (59.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.1% 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. 176 eligible stays.
9.2% 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. 183 eligible stays.
7.4% 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. 113 eligible stays.
78.3% this home
Median of homes: California59.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 60 residents counted.
2.4% 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. 125 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. 125 residents counted.
98.5% 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. 67 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: SNOWDROP 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grossman, Stephen | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 01/15/2014 | |
| Richardson, Daniel | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| 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 | |
| Richardson, Daniel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/26/2021 |
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.