Home / California / Anaheim
3435 W Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 · Orange County · (714) 827-5880
115 certified beds, about 107 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1976
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 555035 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 25, 2026, inspectors cited 22 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 67 health citations since November 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.82 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
20.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to Longwood Management Corporation, an affiliated group of 38 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 67 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 cutting boards were kept in a sanitary condition and with cleanable surface. * The facility failed to ensure the ice cream freezer was free from ice build-up. * The facility failed to ensure a hair restraint was worn by staff in the kitchen. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses for the 62 out of 106 residents (census) who consumed food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary infection control practices were maintained. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 14 changed PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and performed hand hygiene in between resident care for Residents 4 and 6 in an Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) room. * The facility failed to ensure the Lint Trap Log was completed. * The facility failed to ensure CNA 1 performed hand hygiene in between provision of care for Residents 13 and 106. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 31's electric fan was clean and free of dusts. These failures placed the residents at risk for increased risk of infection and transmissions of diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the essential equipment were maintained in a clean and safe operating conditions. * The ice machine located in the kitchen was not maintained in a sanitary condition. * The [NAME] Spunkmeyer countertop oven (used for baking cookies) was not maintained in a sanitary condition. These failures had the potential for the essential equipment not to function in the way they were intended and exposed the residents and staff to unsafe practices which may lead to negative outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the inspection of all the bed to identify areas of possible entrapment to ensure safety was completed. In addition, the facility failed to inspect the bed for one of 23 final sampled residents (Resident 20)prior to the resident's use of bed rails. * The facility failed to ensure the entrapment assessment was completed for Resident 20 prior to the use of the bilateral upper bed rails. * The facility failed to ensure the monthly bed inspections for all beds used by the residents were completed. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents safety resulting in possible entrapment, serious injury, and/or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the resident was notified of the result of the laboratory test for one of 23 final sample residents reviewed for a change in condition. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 13 was informed of the result of her urine culture test. This failure had the potential for the resident to not be aware of her condition and plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to meet the needs for one of 23 final sampled residents (Resident 90). * The facility failed to ensure Resident's 90 call light was within the residents' reach. This failure had the potential for the delay of care as the resident do not have the means to call for assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain a copy of the advance directive was readily retrievable by any facility staff for one of five sampled residents (Resident 42) reviewed for advance directives. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 42's medical record had a copy of the advance directive. This failure had the potential for Resident 42's decisions regarding his healthcare and treatment options to not be honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of three final sampled residents (Residents 5) reviewed for physical restraint was free from the unnecessary restraints. * The facility failed to follow the physician's order for Resident 5 to be free from physical restraint every Sunday. This failure had the potential for increased risk of physical harm and potential negative outcome to Resident 5.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of five final sampled residents (Residents 4 and 47) reviewed for psychotropic medications were free from the unnecessary psychotropic medications. * The facility failed to ensure the lorazepam (anti-anxiety) medication was administered to Resident 4 as per the physician's order. In addition, the facility failed to document the nonpharmacological interventions provided to Resident 4 prior to the administration of the lorazepam medication. * The facility failed to document what nonpharmacological interventions would be attempted when Resident 47 had episodes of depression as manifested by verbalization of hopelessness and helplessness related to Resident 47's use of escitalopram (anti-depression) medication. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for three of 23 final sampled residents (Residents 13, 20, and 102). * The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed for Resident 13 when the resident had a change in condition. * The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed for the use of the bilateral upper bed rails for Resident 20. * The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed to address the use of the insulin (medication to lower the blood sugar) medication for Resident 102. These failures had the potential for the residents to receive inconsistent, inappropriate and inadequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility's P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the care plans were revised and updated for one of 23 final sampled residents (Resident 54) reviewed for care plans. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 54's activity care plan was revised to reflect the resident 's current condition and needs when Resident 54 was no longer on a mechanical ventilator. This failure posed the risk for the resident to not receive a current individualized and person-centered care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure two of 23 final sampled residents (Residents 11 and 13) attained and maintained their highest practicable well-being. * The facility failed to follow the physician's order to check and record the orthostatic blood pressure for Resident 11. * The facility failed to ensure to continuously monitor Resident 13 when the resident had a change in condition. These failures had the potential for the residents to not receive the necessary care and services when the residents had a change in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were provided to prevent the development of pressure injuries or worsening of the existing pressure injuries for one of two final sampled residents (Resident 40) reviewed for pressure injuries. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 40's LAL mattress setting was appropriate to the resident's weight. This failure had the potential for Resident 40 to develop pressure injuries or worsening of the existing pressure injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P (Policy and Procedures) review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were safely provided using two person assistance for one of 23 final sampled residents (Resident 12) and three of three nonsampled residents (residents who are not included in the finalized survey sample, Residents 22, 49, and 70) reviewed for falls. * The facility failed to ensure the two person assistance was provided when providing ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care to Resident 12. Resident 12 sustained a fall when a one person assistance was provided during care which resulted to a right foot first metatarsal (big toe) fracture. In addition, the facility failed to ensure Residents 22, 49, and 70 were provided with two person assistance during care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary GT care and services for five of 23 final sampled residents (Resident 8, 12, 42, 54 and 104) with enteral feeding orders. * The facility failed to ensure Residents 8, 12, 42, and 104 were administered the total amount of enteral feedings as ordered by the physician. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 54 was positioned safely at 30 to 45 degrees during the enteral feeding via GT. In addition, the facility failed to follow Resident 54's physicians order to hold the enteral feeding one hour before the administration of phenytoin (a prescription anticonvulsant used to treat and prevent seizure). These failures had the potential for the residents to have undesirable outcomes, including aspiration and risk for weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P record review, the facility failed to provide the respiratory care and services for one of two nonsampled residents (Resident 84) reviewed for respiratory care. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 84 was administered with the oxygen as prescribed by the physician. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the resident's health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the dialysis care and services were provided for one of 23 final sampled residents (Resident 10) reviewed who was receiving dialysis (life sustaining medical treatment which filters waste, toxins, and excess fluids from the blood when the kidneys fail) care. * The facility failed to ensure the instructions from the dialysis center was addressed for Resident 10 on 11/27/25. This failure had the potential to result in health complications for Resident 10.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were provided for the used of side rails for one of three final sampled residents (Resident 20) reviewed for the use of the bed rails. * The facility failed to ensure the physician's order and informed consent were obtained, the physical assessment was completed, and less restrictive alternatives were attempted prior to Resident 20's use of the bed rails. These failures had the potential for the resident to receive unnecessary measures and for the resident to not be aware of the risk and benefits of the side rails' use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate nurse staffing information was posted daily for residents and visitors to view, for one of three nursing stations (Station A). * The facility's posted staffing information observed on 3/22/26, had a date of 3/18/26. This failure had the potential of not having the staffing information be available to the residents and the public to determine if sufficient staff were available to care for the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the drugs, biologicals, or medical supplies were stored in a safe manner. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 104's GT feeding was not left at the bedside unattended. This failure had the potential for the GT feeding to be accidentally administered or used inappropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the nursing staff reported laboratory results to the physician in a timely manner for one of 23 final sampled residents (Resident 20). * The facility failed to ensure the UA C&S (Urinalysis with Culture and Sensitivity) laboratory results were reported to the physician in a timely manner. Resident 20's UA C&S laboratory results were available on 3/15/26; however, the results were not reported to the physician until 3/19/26. This failure had the potential to result in a delay of care and risk for adverse complications for Resident 20.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate medical records for one of 23 final sampled residents (Resident 7). * The facility failed to ensure the amount of GT feeding formula administered to Resident 7 was documented on the resident's Intake record. This failure had the potential for Resident 7's care needs not being met as the resident's medical information was inaccurate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary respiratory care and services for one of four sampled residents (Resident 4). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 4's suction canister was changed. This failure had the potential to affect the respiratory health and well-being of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the resident equipment was maintained in a safe operating condition. * An air fryer (countertop appliance used to cook food) and Keurig coffee machine were observed in Resident 4's room. This failure had the potential for the equipment to not function in the way it was intended and exposed to potential fire hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) attained and maintained the highest practicable physical well-being. * The facility failed to ensure the proper documentation was completed as per the facility's protocol for Resident 1 who had a change in condition. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to not be provided with the appropriate care and monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement the infection control practices designed to provide the safe and sanitary environment to prevent the transmission of diseases and infections in the facility. * The facility failed to ensure the staff practiced the EBP during high contact-care for one of three sampled residents (Resident 3). This failure posed the risk for the transmission of diseases and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the DSS was competent in the day-to-day supervision of the kitchen as evidenced by: 1. Fried eggs were not pasteurized or cooked thoroughly for one of three non-sampled residents (Resident 33). 2. The DSS did not know the correct procedure to calibrate a thermometer. 3. The DSS did not know the manufacturer guidelines for the health shakes. 4. The DSS did not ensure food preparation equipment was replaced when worn. 5. The DSS did not ensure beard coverings were available for kitchen staff with facial hair. 6. The DSS competency was not evaluated by the Administrator. These failures posed the risk for 62 vulnerable residents who received food prepared in the kitchen to be exposed to potential food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of 10 kitchen employees (Cook 1 and DA 1) were competent in their daily job duties when: 1. [NAME] 1 failed to perform the following: - Follow proper hand hygiene, - Take food temperatures correctly during meal service, - Prepare resident meals according to the facility recipes, - Accurately test the sanitizing solution used to sanitize food preparation surfaces, and - Utilize the manual dishwashing process correctly. 2. DA 1 was unable to read the temperature dial of the dish machine. These failures posed the risk for unsafe food handling practices which could expose the 62 residents who received food prepared in the kitchen to food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the menus were followed when the recipes for puree meat, vegetables, and starch were not adhered to. This failure had the potential for the nutritional needs to not be met for 15 residents who received a puree diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the food safety and sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen as evidenced by: * The facility failed to ensure the egg served was fully cooked when there were no pasteurized eggs were available. * The facility failed to ensure the proper hand hygiene was followed during the food preparation. * The facility failed to ensure the fish thawing process was followed. * The facility failed to the ensure the automatic dish washing water temperature reached the acceptable range. * The facility failed to ensure the manual dishwashing process was followed. * The facility failed to ensure the refrigerated food items were stored properly. * The facility failed to ensure the ice storage was in sanitary condition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the care was provided in a manner which promoted dignity and respect for one of four final sampled residents (Resident 84) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter and one of 24 final sampled residents (Resident 71) reviewed for privacy. * The facility failed ensure Resident 84's indwelling urinary drainage bag was fully covered. * Resident 71's body parts were exposed while being transferred to a shower bed. These failures have the potential to negatively affect the resident's emotional well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the informed consents for four of 24 final sampled residents (Residents 10, 44, 72, and 85) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 20) were completed as per the facility's P&P. * The facility failed to ensure the informed consents for Residents 10, 20, 72, and 85 were signed and dated by the physician. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 44's informed consent for the use of the Abilify (antipsychotic medication) was signed and dated by the physician. These failures posed the risk of residents and their responsible parties not to be informed of their treatments and the potential side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain a copy of an advance directive in the medical record for one of six final sampled residents (Resident 34) reviewed for advance directives. This failure had the potential for Resident 34's decisions regarding his healthcare and treatment options to not be honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate restraint use, including skin assessment, removal of restraint, and ROM exercises for three of three final sampled residents (Residents 41, 72, and 100) reviewed for the use of the restraints. * Resident 100 did not have a physician's order and consent for the use of the elbow restraint, and no documentation of the restraint removal, and if the arm was assessed and exercised every two hours. * Residents 41 and 72's medical records failed to show their hand mitten restraints were removed, and if their hands were assessed and exercised every two hours. These failures had the potential for the increased risk of resident's skin and soft tissue injury as well as the decrease in the ROM functions related to restraint use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or their representative of the transfer and reasons for the transfer in writing when the resident was transferred to the acute care hospital for two of three final sampled residents (final sampled residents, Residents 11 and 84) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure had the potential for the resident and their representative of not knowing about the appeal process and the circumstances of the resident's transfer/discharge should the resident and their representative believe the transfer or discharge was inappropriate or involuntary.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or their representative were provided with the written information regarding the facility's bed-hold policy when the resident was transferred to the acute care hospital for two of three final sampled residents (Residents 11 and 84) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure had the potential for Residents 11 and 84 and/or their representative to be unaware of their rights to request a bed hold and return to the first available bed should the resident's hospital stay exceed the seven-day bed-hold period.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to develop and implement the plan of care for one of 24 final sampled residents (Resident 100). * Resident 100's care plan failed to address the resident's ventilator use at night and left elbow restraint use. This failure had the potential for the resident's plan of care not being communicated to the interdisciplinary team.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of 24 final sampled residents (Resident 47) remain free from accident hazards. * The facility failed to apply the tab alarm (a fall prevention device designed to alert caregivers when a person attempts to get out of the bed, chair, or wheelchair) for Resident 47 as ordered by the physician. This failure had the potential to place Resident 47 at risk for serious injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to verify the GT placement, patency, and gastric residuals prior to starting an enteral tube feeding for one of four residents investigated for tube feeding (final sampled resident, Resident 100). This failure had the potential for adverse outcome related to a dislodged GT or increased gastric residuals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure three of three final sampled residents (Residents 52, 82, and 712) reviewed for respiratory care were provided the appropriate respiratory care. * The facility failed to ensure Residents 82 and 712's oxygen tubings were labeled and dated. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 52 was administered the oxygen as per the physician's order. These failures had the potential to affect the respiratory health and well-being of the residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the non-pharmacological interventions for pain management was provided when one of one final sampled resident (Resident 34) reviewed for pain management. This failure had the potential to negatively affect Resident 34's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest physical well-being for one of one final sampled resident (Resident 10) reviewed for hemodialysis care. * The facility failed to ensure the licensed staff have the competency to assess the hemodialysis access site of Resident 10. This failure had the potential for the delay in hemodialysis site assessment and resident's poor health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure seven of eight final sampled residents (Residents 9, 45, 47, 51, 52, 89, and 99) reviewed for the side rail use remained free from the accident hazards associated with the use of the elevated side rails. * The facility failed to ensure the side rails assessment was accurate or completed, and/or the least restrictive measures were provided prior to the use of the side rails for Residents 9, 45, 47, 51, 52, 89, and 99. These failures had the potential to put the residents at risk for entrapment and serious injuries.
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 and medication was administered as ordered by the physician for two of three residents (nonsampled residents, Residents 18 and 48) reviewed during the medication administration as evidence by the following: * The facility failed to ensure Resident 18's physician's order for the digoxin (heart medication) matched the instructions shown on the medication label of the bubble pack provided by the pharmacy. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 48's metoprolol tartrate (blood pressure medication) medication was administered with food as ordered by the physician. These failures posed the risk for negative health outcomes to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of five final sampled residents (Residents 34 and 44) were free from the unnecessary psychotropic drugs (any drug that affects brain activity associated with mental processes and behavior). * The facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were implemented for the depression and anxiety behaviors exhibited by Resident 34. * The facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were implemented for the bipolar behaviors exhibited by Resident 44. These failures had the potential to place the residents at risk for receiving the unnecessary medications and increased risk of serious medication adverse reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmacy services to ensure the proper storage and disposal of the medications. * The facility failed to store the external and internal medications separately in Medication Storage Room A and Medication Cart G. * The facility failed to ensure seven out of eight sampled Medication Carts (Medication Carts A, B, C, D, E, G, and H) were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. * The facility failed to ensure Residents 19 and 98's Assure Platinum Meter Serial Number in the blood glucose monitoring system record were accurately documented. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents' well-being, and the potential for the medications to lose the stability and effectiveness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the nutrient content of pureed vegetables was preserved when pureed vegetables were prepared more than one hour prior to meal service and held in an oven at 500 degrees F. This failure posed the risk of 15 residents on a puree diet to not meet their nutritional needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure two of 10 final residents reviewed for dining (Residents 11 and 85) received food prepared in a form to meet their individual dietary needs. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 11 was provided with the minced and moist diet as per physician's diet order. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 85 was provided with the mechanical soft snacks as per the resident's diet order. These failures placed Residents 11 and 85 at risk for aspiration (accidental breathing in of food or fluid into the lungs) or choking.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the food preferences were honored for one of 24 final sampled residents (Resident 10). This failure had the potential for decreased meal intake, weight loss, and a negative impact on the resident's psychosocial wellbeing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure food brought from the outside was stored for three nonsampled residents (Residents 57, 65, and 70). Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the visitors and staff were educated on safe food handling guidelines. These failures had the potential to expose residents who received food brought from the outside to food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's garbage and refuse was properly disposed as evidence by: * The facility failed to ensure the waste dumpsters were properly closed. * The facility failed to ensure the organic waste and recycling refuse were handled as per state mandate SB1383. * The facility failed to ensure trash was placed in the appropriate containers and not stored in the trash bags placed on the ground or stacked on hand carts. These failures had the potential to cause unsafe sanitary conditions and potential to harbor pests and rodents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medical records were accurately maintained for eight of 24 final sampled residents (Residents 9, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 72, 89, and 99). * The facility failed to ensure the respiratory care documentation for Resident 72 were accurate. * The facility failed to ensure the side rails assessment for the risk for entrapment for Residents 9, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 89, and 99 were accurate. These failures posed the risk for residents not to receive the necessary care and services as their medical records were not accurate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain the infection control program and practices to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infections. * Two used mugs and a utensil were sitting on the laundry room's clean sink, and the clean linen shelf had staffs' personal belongings, hand sanitizers and lotion bottles next to the clean linen. * The facility was not cleaning and maintaining their decorative water feature, as well as maintaining logs per the facility's water management program. * Residents 28, 77, 88, and 98's (nonsampled residents) infections were incorrectly listed as meeting McGeer's Criteria on the facility's monthly infection control report. * The LVN failed to maintain infection control practices when initiating Resident 100's GT feeding. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement the antibiotic stewardship program to reduce the risk of unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use when one closed record sampled resident (Resident 1) and four nonsampled residents (Residents 28, 77, 88, and 98) were being treated for conditions which did not meet the McGeer's criteria. These failures had the potential of not accurately identifying true infections and exposing the residents to unnecessary antibiotic use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain the essential equipment in a clean and safe operating condition when: * The ice machine located in the kitchen was not clean and the manufacturer's guidelines for cleaning and sanitizing were not followed. * The walk-in refrigerator floor was not maintained in a clean/sanitary condition. * The microwave used to heat the resident's food was not maintained in a clean condition. These failures had the potential for the essential equipment to not function in the way it was intended and expose residents to unsafe practices, which could lead to food borne illnesses for the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure three of the four dumpsters for garbage and refuse were properly covered. * Three dumpsters were observed filled above the maximum loading level and were not properly covered. This failure posed the risk of attracting pests and rodents carrying diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain the infection prevention and control program designed to provide thesafe, sanitary comfortable environment to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseasesand infection. * CNA 5 failed to properly perform the proper hand hygiene after removing and disposing the PPE. * The facility failed to ensure the proper disposal of used gowns and gloves in the trash in Room A. These failures had the potential risk to spread and control the infection to the residents, staff personnel, and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medical records for two of three sampled residents (Resident 2 and 3) were complete and accurate. * The facility failed to ensure the complete documentation for Residents 2 and 3's turning and repositioning monitoring. This failure had the potential for the resident care needs not being met as the medical information was incomplete and inaccurate.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 (Resident #60) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASSR) requirements. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #60's annual MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/07/2023, reflected that the resident was considered by the state level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or related condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the use of a bilevel positive airway pressure machine (BiPAP, a machine used to provide noninvasive ventilation) was reflected on the care plan for 1 (Resident #60) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff assisted with oral care, including brushing teeth, for 1 (Resident #62) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was cleaned and stored appropriately between uses for 1 (Resident #60) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care. Specifically, Resident #60's bilevel positive airway pressure machine (BiPAP, a machine used to provide noninvasive ventilation) mask was cleaned and stored in a plastic bag after each use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5 percent (%). Specifically, the facility had 2 errors out of 31 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 6.45%, affecting 1 (Resident #6) of 5 residents reviewed during the medication administration task.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for one of three sampled residents (Resident 3) to ensure the resident maintained his highest physical well-being. * The facility failed to ensure the sling was applied appropriately to Resident 3's RUE as per the physician's order. This failure had the potential to affect Resident 3's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services were provided to prevent the worsening of pressure injuries (areas of damaged skin caused by staying in one position for a long time which reduces blood flow to the area and causes the skin to die and develop a sore) and promote the healing of existing pressure injuries for two of three sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2). * The facility failed to provide the appropriate and necessary nursing services to ensure Residents 1 and 2 had no more than two layers of linen between the residents and low air loss mattress. This failure had the potential of Residents 1 and 2 not receiving the appropriate care and services to promote healing or prevent the development of new pressure injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 3) who received enteral feedings via GT were provided the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 3 was administered the correct enteral feeding formula as ordered by the physician. In addition, the facility failed to ensure the enteral feeding mechanical pump was operated by a licensed staff for Resident 3. These failures posed the potential risk for not meeting the Resident 3's nutritional needs and potential risk for aspiration during feeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the nursing staff performed hand hygiene during the wound care treatment for two of three sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2). This failure posed the risk of infection and the transmission of disease-causing microorganisms.
13 fire safety citations on file: 6 on March 25, 2026, 4 on March 14, 2025, 3 on March 8, 2024.
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) | 4.82 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.52 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.44 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.79 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 20.2% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 0.0% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 5.83 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 4.94 on weekdays and 4.52 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.77 in April to June 2025 to 4.82 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 | 4.82 | 0.59 | 4.94 | 4.52 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 107 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.81 | 0.60 | 4.93 | 4.53 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 107 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.81 | 0.65 | 4.93 | 4.51 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 108 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.77 | 0.63 | 4.88 | 4.49 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 109 |
| 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 | 8.1 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 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 | 8.6 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.6 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.1 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.9 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.4 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.4 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Park Anaheim Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (39.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
39.9% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · California: 301 better, 190 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 104 eligible stays.
11.0% 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. 126 eligible stays.
9.9% 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. 78 eligible stays.
43.5% 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. 62 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. 101 residents counted.
0.7% 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. 101 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. 19 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: PARK ANAHEIM HEALTH CARE, LLC. CMS links this home to Longwood Management Corporation, a group of 38 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Friedman Family Trust | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 20% | 06/30/2023 |
| Ira D Friedman 1991 Trust | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 20% | 06/30/2023 |
| Lehmann Family 1991 Trust | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 20% | 06/30/2023 |
| The Klavan Family Trust | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 20% | 06/30/2023 |
| The Tzippy Friedman Notis 1990 Trust | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 20% | 06/30/2023 |
| Friedman, Aaron | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 06/30/2023 |
| Klavan, Rachel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 06/30/2023 |
| Lehmann, Libby | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 06/30/2023 |
| Friedman, Ira | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/30/2023 | |
| Friedman, Ira | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/1995 | |
| Bansal, Marissa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/04/2018 | |
| Bruso, Caroline | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/16/2022 | |
| Friedman, Ira | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/30/2023 | |
| Klavan, Joshua | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2022 | |
| Shams, Fariborz | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/09/2024 | |
| Friedman, Aaron | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 06/30/2023 | |
| Friedman, Ira | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 06/30/2023 | |
| Klavan, Rachel | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 06/30/2023 | |
| Lehmann, Libby | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 06/30/2023 | |
| Longwood Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Bansal, Marissa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/04/2018 | |
| Bruso, Caroline | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/16/2022 | |
| Friedman, Aaron | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/30/2023 | |
| Friedman, Ira | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/30/2023 | |
| Klavan, Joshua | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/16/1986 | |
| Pervaiz, Zaid | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2013 | |
| Shams, Fariborz | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/09/2024 |
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.