Home / California / Oakland
2124 57th Avenue, Oakland, CA 94621 · Alameda County · (510) 261-2628
82 certified beds, about 80 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1968
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 055876 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 20, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since May 2022, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.86 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.36 of those hours.
CMS links it to Corporate Interface Services, an affiliated group of 40 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to involve the resident representative in the development of the discharge plan for one of two residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1's Family Member (FM) 1, who was the healthcare decision maker, did not receive a written notice of the proposed discharge. This failure resulted in Resident 1's FM 1 to be uninvolved with the discharge planning process and was unable to appeal the Resident 1's discharge from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from unnecessary medications (medications used in the presence of unwanted, unintended, or dangerous effects which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 2). Resident 2 was administered Norco (also known as hydrocodone-acetaminophen) a controlled substance pain medication that causes dizziness and drowsiness), Lorazepam (also known as Ativan, a controlled substance medication that depresses the central nervous system [CNS] causing drowsiness, dizziness, weakness, and unsteadiness), and gabapentin (a medication used to treat nerve pain that causes extreme sleepiness, dizziness, and unsteadiness) in (one medication given along with either of the others) during the period of 12/11/23 to 12/15/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect three of three sampled residents (Resident 1, Resident 2, Resident 3) from aggressive and inappropriate sexual behaviors exhibited by Resident 4. Resident 4 inappropriately touched Residents 1, 2, and 3 on their thighs, scrotum and buttocks areas without their consent. Resident 4 threw hot coffee at Resident 2. This failure resulted in feelings of emotional distress, embarrassment, anger and a loss of personal security on Resident 1, 2 and 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation for an allegation of abuse involving two of four sampled residents (Resident 1, and Resident 4). Resident 1, a male resident alleged Resident 4 (female) touched him inappropriately and made sexual comments at him. This failure placed Resident 1 and other vulnerable residents at the facility to experience Resident 4's inappropriate sexual behaviors. Cross Reference F600.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, for four of four sampled residents (Resident 7, 90, 80, and 63) who were investigated for accidents, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistive device when: 1. Resident 7 fell out of bed when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 looked away while changing Resident 7's brief. Resident 7 sustained multiple injuries that included, a hematoma (when blood collects outside a blood vessel) on the right cheek and around the right eye, intraparenchymal hemorrhage (bleeding that occurs within the brain tissue), and fractures of the left 10th and 11th ribs (when one of the bones in the rib cage cracks, usually as a result of a fall or an accident). Resident 7 was transferred to the hospital for further treatment. 2. Resident 90 fell out of bed while CNA 4 assisted with toileting hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect belongings for one sampled resident (Resident 63), when his clothes and personal items were missing and were not accounted for. This failure had compromised the right of Resident 63 to retain personal possessions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse when two of five sampled residents (Resident 3 and Resident 26) were involved in a physical altercation. This failure resulted in Resident 3 sustaining a skin tear on the left arm.
Inspectors wroteBased interview and record review, for one of five sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for unnecessary medication use, the facility failed to ensure Resident 2 did not receive unnecessary psychotropic (also referred to as psychoactive medications, including antianxiety medications) medications when:-Lorazepam (antianxiety) was given for PRN (as needed) beyond 14 days.-Monitoring for behavioral manifestation for lorazepam use did not coincide with physician-ordered lorazepam PRN use. This failure had the potential to result in increased risk of adverse drug effects, such as dependence, sedation, confusion, and falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, for one of two sampled residents (Resident 6) who were reviewed for PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review, required to determine if the resident needs specialized services for serious mental illness or mental retardation before admission to a Medicaid certified nursing facility) evaluation, the facility failed to coordinate PASRR Level II (a more in-depth evaluation for individuals identified by the Level I screen) determination after a positive PASRR I evaluation. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 6 receiving care that is not appropriate for their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat skin rash for one of five sampled residents (Resident 42) when nursing staff was not aware of Resident 42's skin rash. This failure resulted in Resident 42 having an untreated skin rash for unknown of length of time.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, facility failed to provide the prescribed Bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP is a non-invasive ventilation machine that automatically adjusts the air pressure according to patient's requirement at a particular time) therapy as ordered for one of five sampled residents (Resident 8). This failure placed Resident 8 at risk for poor sleep quality, respiratory compromise and worsening chronic conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to schedule a registered nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week for three days in January 2025. This failure had the potential to put residents at risk and not receive sufficient care. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/3/25 at 9:20 a.m., with the Payroll Account Payable Coordinator (PAPC), PBJ (Payroll - Based Journal) Staffing Data Report [NAME] Report 171705D FY (Fiscal Year) Quarter 2 2025 (a method of staffing data from nursing facilities) January 1- March 31, dated 9/22/25 was reviewed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were available and provided to residents when: 1. Resident 78 did not receive Xarelto (a blood thinner) medication as ordered by the physician. 2. Two medication E-kits (Emergency kits) were opened and not replaced within 72 hours. These failures had the potential to put patients at risk for harm due to missed doses of medications including delayed treatment during emergency situations when medications are not available for use.
Inspectors wroteBased interview and record review, for one of five (Resident 2) sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use, the facility failed to act on the Consultant Pharmacist's (CP) recommendations for monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR, in-depth evaluation of a patient's complete list of medications by a pharmacist to ensure safety and effectiveness) for three consecutive months. This failure had the potential to result in unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the safe storage and labeling of medications when:1. Three medications - Adult Gummies C, Extra strength D 3, and Magnesium Extra strength were observed at Resident 71's bedside.2. One over the counter (OTC) eye drop in the medication (med) cart 1 was not labeled with name. These failures had the potential for medication errors and unsafe use of medications and biologicals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store food in a safe and sanitary manner when: 1. Fresh lettuce stored inside the reach-in refrigerator was exposed and had no cover 2. A plastic container bin with single packs of graham crackers had no use by date or open dates Failure to store food in accordance with facility policy and/or professional standards had the potential to not meet food service safety standards and prevent food borne illnesses for 76 residents who received food from the kitchen out of a facility census of 76.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was Registered Nurse (RN) coverage eight hours a day, seven days a week. This failure had the potential to endanger the health and safety of residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) services as ordered by the physician for two of 20 sampled residents reviewed for Range Of Motion (ROM) functions (Resident 2 and 69). This failure had the potential for decline in the resident's range of motion and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure three of 78 sampled residents' (Resident 2, Resident 6, and Resident 8), call lights were within reach and easily accessible. This failure placed the Resident 2, Resident 6 and Resident 8 at risk of not being able to ask for assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one out of three residents (Resident 1) had written Informed Consent (a process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention to help them decide if they want to authorize the given procedure or intervention) before they were administered a psychoactive medication (a drug or other substance that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior). This failure had the potential to cause Resident 1 to take a psychoactive medication without knowledge of the medication ' s risks, benefits, and alternatives. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) received necessary care to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene when Resident 1 had long, sharp fingernails with brownish yellow matter underneath on both hands. This failure resulted in Resident 1 feeling helpless and placed her at risk for infections and hurting themselves with long fingernails.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to provide adequate oversight of the kitchen when multiple issues were identified with kitchen safety and sanitation; equipment was not maintained; food was not served so it was palatable and cooked to maintain nutritive value; and staff were not trained and competent for calibrating thermometers and cooking food to a safe temperature. These failures had the potential to result in food being served to residents in a safe and sanitary manner resulting in food borne illness; attract pests to the kitchen resulting in contamination of food, utensils, and equipment; and decrease the amount of food intake for residents resulting in nutritional related medical issues, for 71 residents who received food from the kitchen out of a facility census of 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure vegetables were palatable and cooked in a manner to conserve nutritive value for 71 residents who received food from the kitchen out of a facility census of 71. This failure had the potential for residents to not consume the amount of nutrients planned for the menu.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure a safe and sanitary environment in the kitchen when: 1. Food was not frozen when stored in a reach-in freezer; 2. Two door screens were not intact and sealed properly to help prevent insects and rodents from entering the kitchen; 3. Cooking pans were in poor condition; 4. The ice machine was not stored in an area to help prevent contamination of the ice; 5. There were no air-gaps for the food preparation sink and the 2-compartment warewashing sink; 6. Staff did not practice appropriate hand hygiene; and 7. Soiled oven mitts came into contact with food. This failure had the potential to cause contamination of food resulting in food borne illness for 71 residents who received food from the kitchen out of a facility census of 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure a drainpipe from the 2-compartment kitchen sink was in good repair. This had the potential to attract pests resulting in contamination of food and utensils for 71 residents who received food from the kitchen out of a facility census of 71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the comprehensive care plan for falls were updated and implemented for one of one sampled resident (Resident 67), when Resident 67 was identified as a high risk for falls and experienced multiple falls. This failure resulted in Resident 67 experiencing a fractured left femoral neck (hip bone), requiring a left hemiarthroplasty (hip replacement surgery) from the fall, and was transferred to the acute care hospital for treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that its medication error rate was not five percent or greater. During the medication pass (med pass) observation, there were six medication errors observed out of 36 opportunities which resulted to a med pass error rate of 16.6 percent. This failure had the potential for Resident 54 not getting the full therapeutic benefit of the medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 54) was free of significant medication error, when Resident 54's oral medications were all crushed and administered together without a physician's order. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 54 not receiving the full benefits of the medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, facility failed to follow its policy and procedure on Oxygen Therapy when there was no date on the oxygen tubings of Resident 62. This deficient practice had the potential of delivering oxygen in an unsafe and unsanitary condition to resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, for two of five (Resident 26 and 34) sampled resident vaccination record, the facility failed to follow their immunization policy and procedure when the pneumococcal vaccine was not offered or documented for Resident 26 and 24 as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP, group of medical public health experts). This deficient practice had the potential to increase the risk for Resident 26 and 34 to acquire, transmit or experience complications from pneumococcal disease.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed obtain a doctor's order and assess one of one resident (Resident 67) ability to self-administer medications when Resident 67 had a bottle of Sore Throat Oral Anesthetic Spray (medication to temporarily relieve sore throat pain) bottle at the bedside. This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 67 using the Sore Throat Oral Anesthetic Spray against safe dosing recommendations. It also had the potential to result in the use of the medication by other residents, who could potentially obtain Resident 67's medication from the bedside table where it was stored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident's (Resident 27) preferences for showers were followed, when Resident 27's scheduled shower days were missed from April through May 2022. This failure resulted in Resident 27's request and preference for showers not being honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow infection control policies and procedures when the Infection Preventionist (IP) did not properly disinfect and store reusable ice bags. This deficient practive had the potential to place residents at risk for spread of infection and cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure one of four staff (Dietary Aide 1 [DA 1]) followed the COVID-19 (an infectious respiratory disease) vaccination policies and procedures when DA 1 did not complete COVID-19 vaccine series with a booster dose. This failure had the potential to result in the spread of COVID-19 infections to residents, staff, and visitors in the facility.
34 fire safety citations on file: 8 on October 20, 2025, 14 on June 13, 2024, 12 on May 20, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 20, 2025 | Payment Denial | 13 days from November 12, 2025 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 3.86 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.36 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.54 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.54 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.96 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.67 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 3.99 on weekdays and 3.54 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.93 in April to June 2025 to 3.86 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 | 3.86 | 0.36 | 3.99 | 3.54 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 80 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.86 | 0.35 | 4.01 | 3.48 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.93 | 0.29 | 4.11 | 3.49 | 0.1% | 0 of 91 | 78 |
| 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 | 5.7 | 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 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.6 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.3 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.3 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Princeton Manor Healthcare Center, LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (36.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
36.4% 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. 47 eligible stays.
9.7% 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. 41 eligible stays.
7.6% 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. 30 eligible stays.
64.5% 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. 31 residents counted.
1.7% 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. 60 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. 60 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. 17 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: PRINCETON MANOR HEALTHCARE CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Corporate Interface Services, a group of 40 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silver, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 99% | 06/09/2016 |
| Silver, Michelle | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 06/09/2016 | |
| Rockport Administrative Services, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2016 | |
| Aldridge, Theartis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/16/2025 | |
| Manoharan, Arun | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Eretz Lion Creek Properties LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2016 | |
| Rockport Administrative Services, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/04/2025 | |
| Aldridge, Theartis | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/16/2025 | |
| Manoharan, Arun | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2023 |
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.