Home / California / Redding
2120 Benton Drive, Redding, CA 96003 · Shasta County · (530) 243-6317
115 certified beds, about 105 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 555356 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 13, 2025, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 36 health citations since September 2019 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 4.57 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.38 of those hours.
43.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to West Harbor Healthcare, an affiliated group of 9 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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility did not ensure that one of four residents sampled (Resident 1) did not get unnecessary medication when Resident 1 received a nicotine patch (a medicated adhesive patch that sticks to the skin to deliver a steady, controlled dose of nicotine into the bloodstream) when she was not a smoker. This failure caused Resident 1 to have diarrhea, be very unhappy and stressed and had an unwanted adverse effect to her physical and emotional well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to update the responsible party (RP) for one of two sample residents, (Resident 2) when Resident 2 had a fall. This failure violated the rights of Resident 2 and the RP to for all changes to be reported immediately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of five percent or less. There were three errors out of 29 opportunities, which yielded a medication error rate of 10.34% for 2 (Resident #77 and Resident #75) of 4 residents observed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was timely reported to the state survey that involved 2 (Resident #12 and Resident #58) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow the physician's order for the use of an as-needed blood pressure medication for 1 (Resident #17) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure there was a physician's order for the use of non-invasive mechanical ventilator for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene and changed their gloves during the provision of incontinence care for 1 (Resident #109) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food safety and sanitation requirements were met in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when: 1. Dietary Manager (DM) was not wearing a hair net in the kitchen. 2. Food was not properly covered, labeled and dated. These failures created a potential risk for exposure to foodborne illnesses in a medically vulnerable population of 110 residents who received food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the right to personal privacy for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1), when patient care was provided to Resident 1 without privacy being provided. This failure had the potential to cause distress and embarassment for Resident 1 by having other residents watching and knowing her medical problems.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were adhered to when Licensed Nurse A (LN A) provided patient care in the dining room without following infection control policy and procedures. These failures had the potential to cause the spread of infection and disease to other residents in the dining room.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to clean the assistive devices used to transfer residents for five out of six mechanical lifts. This failed action had the potential for the spread of infection to clients, staff, and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one of five sampled residents (Resident 2), received assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) to attain or maintain their independence when routine and scheduled showers and bathing were not completed. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 2 feeling depressed with poor self-esteem, and had the potential to contribute to skin breakdown, infection, and negatively impact their ability to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and the facility's policy, the facility failed to complete assessments and add pertinent interventions on the care plan developed for one of three residents, (Resident 2) requiring renal (kidney) dialysis. This failure had the potential for re-hospitalization, and a negative clinical outcome.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional staff were licensed in accordance with California state laws, when registered nurse (RN) 1 was employed from 11/2/23 through 1/4/2024 without a valid registered nursing license issued by the Board of Registered Nursing This failure had the potential to result in substandard quality of care to all the residents in the facility and negatively impact their quality of life and ability to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of physical, emotional, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional food safety and sanitation practices were in place when: 1. Inappropriate use of hats and hairnets were observed for three dietary staff members. 2. Four out of four chicken breasts were not stored and handled according to professional standards of practice. 3. Chlorine test strips were not available to all staff, two out of two staff used the wrong test strip, and chlorine test strip results were incorrectly. 4a. The walk-in freezer floor, dry storage rice bin, prep area drawers, stationary and non-stationary fans, reach-in refrigerator, and the ice machine were not clean. b. The stove, oven, tray line, stationary can opener, and sheet pans were non cleanable due to a black residue build up and grime. c. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident food in safe storage when the facility's walk-in freezer had severe ice buildup and was not maintained in a safe operating condition. This had the potential for equipment failure.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure individualized needs were met for two of 18 residents when: 1. Resident 70's call light device was not within his reach or his line of sight. This failure had the potential for the resident's needs not being met promptly and an increase in accidents and injury. 2. Resident 85 was not provided a trained and competent language translator for his communication with facility staff. This failure had the potential for the resident's needs not being met and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure four of four sampled residents (Resident 50, 7, 25 and 16), and five of six confidential resident interviewed, were not protected from loss when the facility had no system to return lost clothing items to residents. This failure resulted in residents feeling angry and frustrated because they did not have their own clothes to wear.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for five of 18 sampled residents (Resident 2, 38, 68, 72, and 73) when: 1. Resident 2 for potential risk of choking hazards during mealtimes (Refer F689); 2. Resident 68 for impaired visual function ; 3. Resident 38 for severe depression; 4. Resident 73 wandering around the facility and; 5. Resident 72 the use of arm brace. These failures had the potential for care plans to inaccurately reflect the care needed, being provided, or resident care needs to go unmet or the conditions to worsen.
Inspectors wrote3. Review of Resident 38 medical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes, heart failure, muscle weakness and bilateral (both sides) groin wounds. During a review of the the facility's policy and procedure titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), revised March 2018, indicated that a resident's ability to perform ADLs will be measured using clinical tools, including the MDS. During record review of Resident 38's MDS dated [DATE], indicated he required staff assistance with all ADLs. During record review of shower/bath schedule dated 2/8/23-3/8/23, Resident 38 was scheduled for baths on Sundays and Wednesdays. He missed 4 out of 10 bed baths scheduled. No record of nail care performed was found. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a plan of care to address the safety of two of 18 residents when: 1. Resident 2 did not have assistance during meals. 2. Resident 73 was wandering into other resident rooms frequently without supervision. This resulted a choking hazard and had the potential to put all residents at risk for falls and resident to resident altercations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had appropriate competencies and skills sets for developing and implementing plan of care for 18 sampled residents when: 1. Resident 2 did not have the direct care staff supervision for safety during meals. 2. Direct care staff did not ensure Resident 68 had eye glasses available for use. 3. Direct care staff did not provide necessary grooming, nail care, and bed bath services for three of seven dependent residents (Residents 8, 38 and 70). 4. Nursing staff did not develop and implement a plan of care for severe depression for Resident 38. 5. Resident 73 had no interventions in place to mitigate his wandering behavior. This had the potential to put all residents at risk for accidents and hazards and decreased quality of care and life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe medication storage in two out of three medication rooms (a locked room storing the drugs and supplies) and three out of six medication carts (a secure mobile cart storing resident's medications) when: 1. Medication refrigerators (a locked temperature-controlled unit for medication storage) were frosted where vaccines, and insulin (Medicine for blood sugar or diabetic disease) products were stored. 2. Multi dose containers (a bulk container that can be used more than once) of medication and supplies were not dated when first opened and not stored per manufacturer labeling (the drug maker's label on how to store or use the product). 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the qualifications, competencies, and skill sets of the Registered Dietitian (RD) and the Dietary Manager (DM) were in place and supported to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service when: 1. A qualified dietician or other clinically qualified nutrition professional was not employed at the facility full time. 2a. The RD did not monitor or implement weekly weights for three out of three residents: Resident 4 2b. Resident 59 2c. Resident 85 3. The DM did not meet the minimum qualifications. 4. The DM did not evaluate new staff for competencies. (Refer to F802) These failures had the potential to result in foodborne illness, compromise nutritional status, weight loss, ineffective resident care interventions and decreased quality of life impacting 89 residents who lived in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were competent to perform food safety processes according to professional standards when: 1. Equipment was not cleaned according to professional standards of practice. (Refer to F812) 2. Four out of four chicken breasts were thawing at room temperature. (Refer to F812) 3. Staff used the wrong test strips and documented incorrect results when testing the dishwasher's chlorine level. (Refer to F812) 4. Dietary Manager (DM) did not evaluate new staff for competencies. Failure to ensure staff were competent in food safety processes had the potential to result in foodborne illness for 89 residents consuming food from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide two out of two residents (Residents 85 and 4) with plant-based (vegetarian) meals that met the nutritive needs of the residents when: 1. Planned vegetarian menus, prepared in advance, that included a nutrient analysis and alternates (a meal substitute provided when the served menu item was not wanted by the resident) for Resident 85 and Resident 4, were not followed, and were not available for residents or staff. 2. Alternate menu food items did not have a recipe. These failures created the potential for vegetarian residents to receive food that did not meet their nutrient needs and or provide the variety in foods and flavors needed to encourage meal intakes, enhance resident's quality of life, and had the potential to contribute to weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served at an appetizing temperature when four out of four residents (Resident 4, 19, 38, and 59) stated the food was cold. This failure had the potential for a decrease in meal intake and could contribute to weight loss resulting in compromised nutritional status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and maintain an effective, comprehensive Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program that addressed the full range of services the facility provided when: 1. A qualified Registered Dietician (RD) or other clinically qualified nutritional professional were not employed at the facility full time who was responsible to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service and that their Dietary Manager (DM) did not meet the minimum qualifications. 2. Licensed Nursing staff did not develop and implement a plan of care for five of 18 sampled residents (Resident 2, 38, 68, 72, and 73). 3. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA)s had the skills and competencies to assist dependent residents with their Activities of Daily Living (ADL). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe infection control practices when: 1. Licensed nurses (LNs) did not sanitize their hands upon entering or exiting five resident's rooms when direct care was provided. 2. Licensed nurse did not sanitize the shared glucometer (a device used to measure blood sugar) in between resident care for Resident 80, Resident 19, and Resident 7. 3. Licensed nurse did not sanitize the shared blood pressure device (or BP device that measured the pressure of blood pushing against the walls of the arteries) in between resident care provided for Resident 80 and Resident 19. These failed practices may result in spread of infection in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue complete and timely Beneficiary (a person who received Medicare insurance benefits) Notifications to three of 18 sampled residents (Residents 48, 50, and 77). This failure had the potential to prevent the residents from making informed decisions about their care which could have threatened their health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an accurate and complete assessment for one of five sampled residents (Resident 68) when an assessment dated [DATE] documented that vision was adequate and no activity assessment after admission. These failures had the potential for staff to not be fully informed of his health status, to determine the need for further assessment and interventions that could result in delays in care and decline in resident's condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation with specific psychiatric (mental health illness) diagnosis for the use of mind-altering drug called quetiapine (also known as Seroquel, a medication used to treat mental illness) in one out of 18 sampled residents (Resident 40). This failure may pose unsafe medications use in the facility with inconsistent diagnosis.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a complete Discharge Plan for one of 18 sampled residents (Resident 77). This failure had the potential to prevent a smooth and safe transition for Resident 77 from the facility to the community.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accommodate one out of one resident (Resident 85) with preferred food preferences that met cultural needs when dietary staff did not update Resident 85's medical record with preferences. This failure created the potential for a lack of the variety in foods and flavors needed to encourage meal intakes, enhance resident's quality of life, and had the potential to contribute to weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, review of the facility's document and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure one of 21 sampled residents (Resident (R) R58) was assisted with her meal in the dining room in a dignified manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 21 sampled residents (Resident (R) R64) received oxygen (O2) therapy as prescribed by the physician.
29 fire safety citations on file: 11 on February 13, 2025, 10 on March 10, 2023, 8 on September 5, 2019.
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) | 4.57 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.38 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.14 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.69 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.50 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.1% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.96 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 4.74 on weekdays and 4.14 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.54 in April to June 2025 to 4.57 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 | 4.57 | 0.38 | 4.74 | 4.14 | 2.7% | 0 of 90 | 105 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.53 | 0.42 | 4.68 | 4.14 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.55 | 0.49 | 4.72 | 4.10 | 3.5% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.54 | 0.49 | 4.72 | 4.08 | 1.4% | 0 of 91 | 102 |
| 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 | 9.7 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.3 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.1 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.1 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.4 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 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 Quartz Hill Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (67.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
67.0% 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. 631 eligible stays.
10.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · California: 10 better, 22 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 561 eligible stays.
6.9% 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. 400 eligible stays.
52.2% 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. 343 residents counted.
0.4% this home
Median of homes: California0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 455 residents counted.
2.4% this home
Median of homes: California0.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 455 residents counted.
96.0% this home
Median of homes: California96.2% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 296 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: HONOLUA BAY HOLDINGS LLC. CMS links this home to West Harbor Healthcare, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 3.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valley Capital Investments LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 06/27/2017 | |
| West Harbor Healthcare LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 90% | 06/27/2017 |
| Galbasini, Kevin | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 36% | 06/27/2017 |
| Gill, Daniel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 36% | 06/27/2017 |
| Rosenhan, Cameron | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 18% | 06/27/2017 |
| Galbasini, Kevin | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/27/2017 | |
| Gill, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/27/2017 | |
| Rosenhan, Cameron | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/27/2017 | |
| Galbasini, Kevin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/27/2017 | |
| Gill, Daniel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/27/2017 | |
| Rosenhan, Cameron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/27/2017 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its California inspection record.
These are the official offices in California. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.