Home / California / Newport Beach
1555 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 · Orange County · (949) 646-7764
59 certified beds, about 60 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1977
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 055518 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 10, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 41 health citations since April 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 3.69 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.53 of those hours.
CMS links it to Generations Healthcare, an affiliated group of 27 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen. * The facility failed to ensure the kitchen utensils had a smooth cleanable surface and were in good condition. * The facility failed to ensure the kitchenware and kitchen utensils were clean and free of food particles or residue. * The facility failed to ensure one heavy-duty blender and one plastic blender used for the puree preparation was air dried and free of water residue prior to storing and stacking. These failures had the potential for cross contamination and foodborne illnesses to the residents consuming the food prepared in the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to protect the resident's rights to be free from the physical abuse by a resident for one nonsampled resident (Resident 31) investigated for abuse. * Resident 31 was hit on the left eyebrow by another resident (Resident 32), resulting in a small laceration with bleeding. Resident 32 was identified with a history of attacking others out of anger due to delusions. However, there were no specific interventions in the care plan regarding the attacking behavior. This failure had the potential for not protecting the resident and negatively impact the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and facility P&P review, the facility failed to report an abuse allegation to the CDPH and law enforcement for an unidentified number of residents investigated for abuse. * The facility failed to report an allegation of excessively rough staff providing care to the residents. This failure of not reporting abuse allegation had the potential to put the residents at risk for further abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the physician's orders matched the medication label provided by the pharmacy for one of four nonsampled residents (Residents 58) reviewed for the medication administration. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 58's physician's order for haloperidol decanoate (antipsychotic medication) matched the instructions shown on the medication label provided by the pharmacy. This failure posed the risk for negative health outcome to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to store the drugs, biologicals, and medical supplies in a safe manner. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 2 did not leave two syringes filled with two ml Haldol decanoate (antipsychotic medication) unattended at Resident 58's bedside. * The facility failed to ensure the medications in the bin for the medication disposal in Medication Room A were properly stored and disposed of. These failures had the potential for the medications to be accidentally administered or used inappropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the P&P for the Outside Food met the current federal regulation. This failure had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses to the medically vulnerable residents population who received food items from outside sources.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the refuse was stored in a sanitary manner. * The facility failed to ensure the garbage was properly stored in one of three garbage dumpsters. This failure had the potential to attract pest/rodents that carried diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure essential equipment were maintained in proper working condition. * The facility failed to ensure the serial number on the glucometer and the serial number on the Daily Quality Control Record for Medication Cart A was accurate. * The facility failed to ensure the glucometer for Medication Cart B was calibrated and quality control was performed. These failures had the potential for the residents requiring blood glucose checks to have inaccurate readings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement their infection control program in accordance with the facility's P&P. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 3 performed appropriate hand hygiene during a medication administration observation. This failure put the residents at risk for increased risk of infection and transmissions of diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to protect the resident's rights to be free from the physical abuse when Resident 4 was punched in the face and all over the body at two separate incidents by Resident 3. This failure caused Resident 4 to sustain bleeding from his nose, redness above his right eyebrow and on the bridge of his nose, and a bluish/purplish discoloration on his left eye extending to his left cheekbone.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain a safe and secured environment for two of five sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2).* The facility failed to ensure there were systems in place to prevent Residents 1 and 2 from eloping. This failure placed the residents at risk for harm or injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen as evidenced by: * The facility failed to ensure the ice machine utilized for the residents and staff was maintained in a sanitary condition. * The facility failed to ensure the microwave utilized to warm up the food was in sanitary condition and free of food residue. * The facility failed to ensure the sanitary condition of the hood over the stove was maintained. * The facility failed to ensure the kitchen utensils had a smooth cleanable surface and in good condition. * The facility failed to ensure the kitchenware and kitchen utensils were clean and free of food particle or residue. * The facility failed to ensure the cutting board was kept in a sanitary condition and with cleanable surface. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain the infection control practices to prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infections. * The facility failed to show documentation of the Legionella facility risk assessment and testing protocols for Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogen. * CNA 1 failed to remove the gown and gloves and perform hand hygiene after touching Resident 498 and before touching Resident A's environment. * The facility failed to ensure a N95 respirator was stored in a sanitary manner, at the entrance to a resident COVID-19 isolation room. * CNA 6 placed Resident 298's shower bin (which contained a clean towel and bathrobe belt) on top of a soiled linen cart during Resident 298's shower. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure LVN 1 informed the physician of a change in condition for one of three sampled residents (Resident 598) reviewed for falls. This failure had the potential for Resident 598 to have a delay in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plans were implemented for one of thirteen final sampled residents (Resident 298) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 301). * The facility failed to implement the bilateral floor mats in accordance with the Risk for Falls care plan for Resident 298. * The facility failed to administer Resident 301's Lidocaine 4% external patch for pain management in accordance with Resident 301's At Risk for Pain care plan. These failures placed the residents at risk of not being provided appropriate, consistent, and individualized care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were provided to prevent the development of a new pressure ulcers and promote the healing of the existing pressure ulcers for two of two final sampled residents (Residents 598 and 599) reviewed for pressure ulcers. * The facility failed to ensure the LAL mattress setting was consistent with Resident 599's weight and failed to ensure the wound treatment was administered as per the physician's order for Resident 599. * The facility failed to ensure the LAL mattress setting was consistent with Resident 598's weight. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of three final sampled residents (Residents 298 and 600) reviewed for accident hazards remained free from the accident hazards. * The facility failed to ensure CNAs 2 and 3 used a gait belt as per the fall risk evaluation and care plan when transferring Resident 600 to the commode. * The facility failed to implement the bilateral floor mats for safety and fall prevention in accordance with the physician's order for Resident 298. These failures have the potential to place Residents 298 and 600 at risk for serious injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain the IV access for one of 13 final sampled residents (Resident 398). * The facility failed to ensure the PICC line external catheter and arm circumference measurements were completed and documented in the medical record for Resident 398. This failure had the potential to delay the identification of catheter related complications for the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the safe respiratory care for one of three final sampled residents (Resident 12) reviewed for respiratory care. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 12's CPAP machine was cleaned as per the manufacturer's user cleaning guidelines. This failure had the potential to adversely affect the health and well-being Resident 12 and posed the risk for equipment contamination and respiratory complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate pain management for two of two final sampled residents (Residents 12 and 599) reviewed for pain management. * The facility failed to administer pain medication according to the physician's order for Resident 12 and failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions for pain (NPI) were provided/documented prior to the administration of pain medications. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 599 was consistently provided non-pharmacological interventions for pain prior to the administration of narcotic pain medication. These failures put Residents 12 and 599 at risk for ineffective pain management.
Inspectors wrote2. On 12/4/23 at 1007 hours, a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with LVN 4. LVN 4 was observed administering medications to the facility residents. LVN 4 stated she had seven residents (which included Residents 42, 302, and 305) remaining who had yet to receive their morning medications, which were scheduled to be administered at 0900 hours . LVN 4 stated in accordance with the facility's P&P, resident medications were to be administered within one hour of their prescribed time. LVN 4 stated she was unable to administer the morning medications scheduled for 0900 hours, to Residents 42, 302, and 305, due to having to provide nursing care to a resident (Resident 43) who had an episode of vomiting. a. Review of Resident 42's Order Summary Report dated 12/2024, showed the following medications were ordered to be administered on 12/4/24 at 0900 hours: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was below 5%. The facility's medication error rate was 16.13%. * LVN 2 failed to administer three medications as ordered by the physician for Resident 602. * Resident 301 had a physician's order for Calcitriol 0.25 micrograms two capsules orally one time a day for supplement, however, LVN 4 administered two capsules of Calcitriol 0.5 micrograms orally (twice the ordered dose). * Resident 301 had a physician's order for Lidocaine 4% external patch to apply to the right hip and right foot topically for pain management, apply two patches one time a day at the same time, however, LVN 4 applied one lidocaine 4% external patch to Resident 301's hip. These failures had the potential to negatively affect the residents' health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to store the drugs, biologicals, and medical supplies in a safe manner as evidenced by the following: * The facility failed to ensure the opened medical supplies in Medication Carts B and C were properly disposed. * The facility failed to ensure the discontinued medications were properly disposed. These failures had the potential for the drug diversion and to result in an unsafe handling and storage of the residents' medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's PHI was utilized in a confidential manner during the medication administration for one nonsampled resident (Resident 301). * Resident 301's PHI was displayed on a computer screen located in the hallway and left unattended by the staff member. This failure had the potential to violate the resident's right to personal health information privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to accommodate the drink preferences for one of 13 sampled residents (Resident 12). * Resident 12 was not served milk for his lunch meal. This failure had the potential to affect the resident's overall meal intake and nutritional status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's food preferences and allergies were followed for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1). * Resident 1 had an allergy to dairy products but was served milk. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the menus were followed. * The soup was served to the residents without following recipe and nutritional analysis. * The wrong scoop size was used to serve green beans for the residents on the soft-and-bite size diet. * The regular bread was used instead of garlic bread during the pureed bread preparation for the residents on the soft-and-bite size diet. * The pureed bread was not served to Resident 11 during lunch as per the menu. These failures had the potential for residents not receiving adequate nutrition, and appropriate servings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen. * The facility failed to ensure the ice machine was clean. * The facility failed to ensure the food items in the freezer were properly labeled. * The facility failed to ensure the cooking utensils were in good repair. * The facility failed to ensure the cutting boards were in sanitary condition. These failures had the potential to expose the residents who consumed food prepared in the kitchen to foodborne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to determine if it was safe for two of 17 final sampled residents (Residents 27 and 497) to self-administer the medications. * Resident 497 was observed with a bottle of Carboxymethylcellulose Ophthalmic Solution 0.5% (a medication used to relieve dry and irritated eyes) at the bedside table. Resident 497 did not have a physician's order to keep the medication at his bedside. Resident 497 did not have an assessment, or a care plan problem addressing the self-administration of medication. * Resident 27 was observed with ACT dry mouth lozenges (formulated with xylitol to help soothe dry mouth and moisturize mouth tissue) at the bedside. Resident 27 did not have an assessment, physician's order, or a care plan problem addressing the self-administration of medication. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the quality of care was provided to two of 17 final sampled residents (Residents 41 and 296) as evidenced by: * No information related to Resident 296's pacemaker was documented. The apical pulse for Resident 296's pacemaker was not monitored and recorded. * Resident 41's anti-embolism stockings were not consistently placed on the resident. These failures had the potential for the residents to not receive quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary treatment and services were provided to help improve or correct performance or prevent further deformity for one of 17 final sampled residents (Resident 10). * Resident 10 was observed wearing cervical collar (commonly used by those who have had a surgical intervention of the cervical spine, to immobilize the neck) while in bed. The facility failed to ensure Resident 10 followed the physician's order to apply TLSO (thoracic lumbar sacral orthosis, brace used to limit motion in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral regions of the spine) brace when the resident was out of bed. In addition, the facility failed to monitor Resident 10's application of the cervical collar while in bed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmacy services for one of 17 final sampled residents (Resident 37). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 37's oxycodone hydrochloride (a narcotic pain medication) Drug Control Receipt/Record/Disposition Form did not match Resident 37's MAR. This failure posed the risk for diversion of controlled medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of five unnecessary medication sampled residents (Resident 41) was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication (any drug that affects brain activity). * The facility failed to monitor the side effects for Resident 41's use of Trazadone (anti-depressant medication). This had the potential for inaccurate side effect monitoring for Resident 41's physician not having the necessary information if Resident 41 had side effects from medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was below 5%. The facility's medication error rate was 15.38%. Two licensed nurses (LVNs 4 and 5) who were observed during the medication administration were found to have made errors. * LVN 4 failed to administer the correct dose of Clearlax oral powder (medication to treat occasional constipation) to Resident 294. * LVN 5 failed to administer Resident 24's medications as ordered by the physician. In addition, LVN 5 failed to administer Resident 344's medications with food or meals as ordered by the physician. These failures had the potential to negatively affect the residents' health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and the facility P&P review, the facility failed to store the drugs and biologicals in a safe manner. * The facility failed to store Resident 24's difluprednate emulsion (an eye drop medication to treat eye swelling and pain) 0.05% in a locked compartment at bedside. This failure had the potential for the residents, staff, and visitors to have an easy access to the medication. * Multiple outdated Indicaid Covid-19 (a respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2) Rapid Antigen Test buffer solution bottles were observed in Medication Cart A. This had the potential for use of expired medications or biologicals. * Multiple outdated intravenous (into or within a vein) insertion needles were observed in Medication Cart B. This had the potential for use of expired medical supplies. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the food served to one of 17 final sampled residents (Resident 296) was attractive to the resident. This failure had the potential for the resident not enjoying his meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the dietary texture guidelines were followed for the residents on the soft-and-bit-sized diet. * The facility failed to ensure the chopped pot roast and chopped green beans were served to the residents on the soft-and-bite sized diet. This failure had the potential for the residents not liking the food based on the dietary modification and could affect the residents' quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record, facility P&P, and facility document review, the facility failed to follow the residents' preferences when the facility ran out of a food items to be served for breakfast. The facility failed to served fruit cups for one of 17 final sampled residents (Resident 344) and two nonsampled residents (Residents 345 and 346). This failure posed the risk of the residents' nutritional needs not being met and the residents' preferences not being honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to establish and maintain the infection control program and practices designed to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infections. * The facility failed to ensure the licensed nurse performed hand hygiene between changing of gloves during the medication administration observation. * The facility failed to ensure CNA 3 used the proper PPE in an enhanced standard/barrier precaution room when assisting Resident 295. * The facility failed to ensure CNA 5 performed hand hygiene when assisting the residents with meals. * The facility failed to ensure the staff performed proper hand hygiene when providing care. These failures posed the risk for transmission of disease-causing microorganisms and infections to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the freezer compartment inside the residents' refrigerator was free of ice buildup. This had the potential for the refrigerators not being maintained in safe operating condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the regular inspection of all the bed frames, mattresses, and side rails were performed as part of the regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment. This had the potential to negatively impact the residents resulting to entrapment, serious injuries, and death.
12 fire safety citations on file: 2 on December 10, 2025, 2 on December 5, 2024, 8 on April 7, 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) | 3.69 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.53 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.28 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.13 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.02 | ||
| 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 1.99 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.85 on weekdays and 3.28 on weekends, 15% 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 5.98 in July to September 2025 to 3.69 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 | 3.69 | 0.53 | 3.85 | 3.28 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 60 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.73 | 0.54 | 3.89 | 3.33 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 59 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.98 | 0.86 | 6.26 | 5.27 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 37 |
| 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 | 0.0 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Newport Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (68.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
68.8% 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. 700 eligible stays.
10.5% 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. 668 eligible stays.
7.1% 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. 405 eligible stays.
40.6% this home
Median of homes: California59.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 96 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. 131 residents counted.
3.1% 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. 131 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. 5 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: GHC OF NEWPORT BEACH, LLC. CMS links this home to Generations Healthcare, a group of 27 nursing homes averaging 4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bmo Bank, N.a. | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 10/06/2021 | |
| Mastrocola, Lois | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/17/2024 | |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/1998 | |
| Olds, Thomas | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/1998 | |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/1998 | |
| Olds, Thomas | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/1998 |
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.