Home / California / San Diego
6061 Banbury St., San Diego, CA 92139 · San Diego County · (619) 475-2211
162 certified beds, about 151 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1972
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 056330 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 17, 2025, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
Of 50 health citations since March 2019, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $20,501 in the last three years; the largest was $11,391, and the latest is dated March 18, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.96 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.46 of those hours.
42.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 50 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure staff provided necessary supervision (1:1 supervision to monitor continuously and not left unattended) according to the care plan to prevent falls for one of six sampled residents (Resident 1) who had a known history of falls, impaired safety awareness, and an identified need for ongoing staff presence to prevent unsafe self-transfers and falls. As a result, Resident 1 fell in her room, sustained bruises to the forehead, facial swelling, and bruising on arms associated with pain. Resident 1 was subsequently transferred to the hospital for medical evaluation and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed nurse (LN) 1 administered medications according to acceptable clinical standards of practice for two of three residents (Resident 1 and 2) when: LN 1 documented another LN's medication administration for Resident 1's Cefepime (antibiotic, medication to treat infection). LN 1 administered Resident 2's Vancomycin (antibiotic) at the wrong time (four hours after the prescribed time). This deficient practice had the potential to cause medication errors and ineffective treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure intravenous (IV, a method of administering medications through the veins) antibiotics (medications to treat infection) were administered according to physician's orders for two of three residents (Resident 1 and 2) when:Licensed nurse (LN) 1 documented another LN's medication administration for Resident 1's Cefepime (antibiotic, medication to treat infection).2. LN 1 administered Resident 2's Vancomycin (antibiotic) four hours later than the prescribed time. This deficient practice had the potential for the residents' antibiotic therapy to have reduced efficacy and increased risk for antibiotic resistance.
Inspectors wroteThe facility failed to report alleged abuse of two of eleven sampled residents (Resident 11 & 2) to the State Survey Agency when it did not report when:Resident 1 allegedly kicked Resident 11 in the lower torso. Resident 4 allegedly threw a cup of water on Resident 2 while resting in bed. In addition, the facility failed to send a 5-day follow-up investigation report for both alleged abuse incidents to the State Survey Agency. This failure had the potential for alleged abuse to continue indefinitely and put alleged victims at risk of further physical and psychological harm related to the alleged abuse. Cross Reference: F610Findings:1. Record review of admission Record for Resident 1 indicated he was admitted on [DATE] for diagnoses which included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate alleged abuse of two of eleven sampled residents (Resident 11 & 2) when it did not adequately investigate the following incidents:1. Resident 1 allegedly kicked Resident 11 in the lower torso.2. Resident 4 allegedly threw a cup of water on Resident 2. This failure had the potential for alleged abuse to continue indefinitely and put alleged victims at risk of further abuse, bodily, and mental harm related to the alleged abuse. Cross Reference: F609Findings:1. Record review of admission Record for Resident 1 indicated he was admitted on [DATE] for diagnoses which included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide services according to standards of clinical practice when it did not report and document a change of condition in a timely manner for one of eight sampled residents. This failure had the potential to delay interventions and treatments which could have affected Resident 1's health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who required assistance with incontinent (loss of bowel and bladder control ) care, was provided care in a timely manner for one of four sampled residents (Resident 4) reviewed for ADL (activities of daily living- bathing or showering, dressing, getting in and out of bed or a chair, walking, toileting and eating) care. This failure resulted in not meeting Resident 4 ' s need for comfort and had the potential for further complications such as skin breakdown and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain a physician ' s order for a blood sugar fingerstick (a method of measuring blood sugar levels in the blood) in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure and care plan for one of four sampled residents (Resident 4) reviewed. This failure had the potential to affect the delivery of care provided to Resident 4.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility did not maintain a complete Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST- a medical form used to communicate a resident's wishes during a life-threatening emergency) for eight of 32 residents reviewed for complete and accurate medical records. (Residents 2,15, 45, 57, 58, 59, 245, 111) This failure did not provide an accurate representation of the care provided and had the potential to cause confusion amongst care providers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation , interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of ten residents (19) observed during lunch in the dining room had a meal tray at the same time as the other residents. This failure had the potential to not provide and preserve Resident 19's dignity and respect. Findings. A review of Resident 19's undated admission Record indicated that Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (abnormal blood sugar) with Diabetic Neuropathy (a type of nerve damage that occurs with diabetes). During a dining room lunch observation on 4/14/25 at 11:42 A.M., residents were seated in their assigned areas in the dining room. There were three tables assigned for restorative feeding program (aims to help individuals regain or maintain their ability to eat independently). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a nursing assessment tool) for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 134) reviewed for MDS accuracy. This deficient practice resulted in providing inaccurate information to the Federal database (information maintained by the federal government).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services to meet professional standards for two of 32 sampled residents when: 1. Resident 123's midline catheter (tube inserted in the upper arm with the tip located just below the armpit to allow access to the bloodstream for medications, fluids, blood draws, and other treatments) dressing was not changed and monitored. 2. The facility failed to provide a nutritional supplement in accordance with the resident's physician's orders. (Resident 2) This failure had the potential for complications related to intravenous (IV - method of delivering fluids, medications, or nutrients directly into the bloodstream through a vein) therapy and the potential for not meeting Resident 2's nutritional needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor and reassess a change in condition (significant worsening of a resident's physical or mental health) for one sampled resident (303). This failure had the potential for complications related to Resident 303's health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent a stage four (bedsore extended to muscle, tendon or bone) pressure injury from developing after admission for one of three residents (Resident 15) reviewed for pressure injuries. This failure had the potential to affect Resident 15's quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status by not providing a nutritional supplement for one of four residents (Resident 2) reviewed for nutrition and with a significant weight loss. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 2's unplanned weight loss which could lead to further decline in weight and overall health condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication was given as ordered by a physician for one of three residents (Resident 107) observed for medication administration. This failure had the potential for Resident 107's medical needs to be unmet.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of 8 residents (41) reviewed for psychotropics (drugs that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior) had the proper indication for the use of an anti-anxiety medication (a drug used to treat symptoms of anxiety, such as feelings of fear, dread, uneasiness and muscle tightness that may occur as a reaction to stress). This failure resulted in Resident 41's continued use of an antipsychotic medication without proper indication and possible exposure to the medication's side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure current infection control practices were followed when a facility employee touched the spout of beverage cartons upon opening the cartons during mealtime. This failure had the potential for cross contamination (spread of germs and bacteria) and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to notify the attending physician and resident representative on four of five residents (Resident 2, 3, 5 and 7) reviewed for changes in condition when: 1. Resident 2 ' s representative was not notified of a wound deterioration. 2. Resident 3 ' s attending physician was not notified of a significant weight loss. 3. Resident 5 ' s attending physician was not notified of a significant weight loss. 4. Resident 7 ' s representative was not notified of a wound deterioration. These failures had the potential for a delay in care in treatment. In addition, the residents ' representatives were not aware of the change in condition. 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure one of three residents (Resident 2) reviewed for pressure ulcers (bedsore) received the necessary care and services to prevent worsening of the resident ' s pressure ulcer. This failure had the potential for infection and affect the resident ' s overall well-being. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (an impairment of brain function, such as memory loss and judgment) and muscle weakness according to the facility ' s admission Record. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 7/9/24, section GG0170 A through E indicated Resident 2 was dependent on staff with rolling in bed, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand and transfers. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement transmission-based infection control measures when personal protective equipment (PPE, protective garments worn to prevent exposure to infection hazards) was not readily available for staff when entering the room of a resident (2) on transmission-based precautions (TBP, control measures put in place to prevent the spread of disease). This failure increased the risk of MRSA transmission to all susceptible residents, staff, and visitors at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP) before changing a resident's room for one of two sampled residents (1). This failure created the risk of Resident 1's RP being unaware of Resident 1's location while attempting to visit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code activities of daily living (ADL-basic daily tasks such as bathing, dressing, getting in and out of bed, walking, eating and toileting) in the MDS assessment (a clinical assessment tool) for one of one resident reviewed for MDS. (Resident 3) This deficient practice had the potential to not meet resident ' s needs for safety and well-being, as well as miscommunication among caregivers regarding Resident 3 ' s ADL plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive resident-centered care plans were developed and revised for two residents with stage four pressure ulcers (bedsores extended to muscle, tendon or bone). (Resident 1 and 4) These failures had the potential for these residents ' pressure ulcers to worsen and become infected.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to update their care plan for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) with history of falls. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 ' s current fall prevention interventions to not be communicated to all health care providers. Findings. Resident 1 was admitted from the acute hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia (A group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning) and history of falls. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 10:20 A.M., with restorative nursing aide (RNA) 1, RNA 1 stated she saw Resident 1 on the floor in the dining room. RNA 1 stated Resident 1 tends to stand up and down in his wheelchair. An observation was conducted in the dining room on 10/25/23 at 10:30 A.M. Twelve residents were attending activities with two activity staff present. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a room change was documented in the medical record for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for complete and accurate medical record. This failure had the potential to cause confusion amongst the healthcare team. Findings. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia (a general term for loss of memory, language , problem solving and other thinking abilities that interfere with daily life) and history of falls , according to the Resident ' s 1 face sheet. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 10: 36 A.M., with licensed nurse (LN ) LN1, LN 1 stated the nurses had been placing Resident 1 in front of the nurse ' s station for close supervision due to Resident 1 ' s episode of trying to get out of the wheelchair unassisted. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident 1), who was frail and had cognitive impairment, was free from an avoidable fall with injury when: 1. Certified nursing assistant (CNA) 2 placed Resident 1 in a wheelchair, who was agitated and was left alone unattended, in the hallway around 2 A.M. 2. Resident 1's written care plan was not followed related to locomotion (how the resident moves between locations including self-sufficiency in a wheelchair) that was required to be provided by at least one staff. As a result, Resident 1 fell out of the wheelchair and hit her head on the floor. Resident 1 sustained a laceration (open wound) to her left forehead that required evaluation at the hospital and sutures (stitches holding the edges of a wound together) to close the laceration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI- a systematic, interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and data-driven approach to maintaining and improving safety and quality in nursing homes)/ Quality Assurance (QA) Committee failed to identify areas of improvement related to resident falls. This failure put residents' safety at risk and increased the potential more falls would occur. Cross reference F689.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS is a nursing assessment tool) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 4) reviewed for MDS coding. This deficient practice will result in providing inaccurate information to the Federal database.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement care plans for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when: 1. Resident 1 did not have a written care plan developed for their indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted into the body to drain urine). 2. Resident 1's written care plan for activities of daily living (ADL, self-care activities like locomotion and getting dressed) was not implemented. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 1's urinary catheter care to not be provided by staff which could lead to urinary tract infection. In addition, not providing the required level of assistance to Resident 1 during ADL had the potential for accidents to occur.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise one of three residents' (Resident 1) written care plan with clear, resident-specific interventions after the resident sustained a fall with injury on 8/17/23. In addition, a post fall rehab screening that had been recommended by the interdisciplinary team (IDT, a multi-disciplinary group) was not followed after Resident 1 fell. As a result, there was a potential for Resident 1 to experience more falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services necessary to ensure that one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) with an indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted into the body to drain urine) had a clinical condition that demonstrated the need for the catheter. These failures had the potential to result in the unnecessary use of an indwelling urinary catheter or urinary tract infection(s).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe transport for one of 3 sampled residents (1). As a result, Resident 1 was dropped during transport and had to be evaluated at a hospital for injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently offer evening snacks to seven of 13 residents (Residents 34, 44, 61, 69, 79, 97, and 111), reviewed for Between Meal Snacks. This failure had the potential for residents to go to bed hungry.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain informed consent prior to administering psychotropic medications (a medication which affects the mind) for two of three sampled residents reviewed for informed consents (54, 72). As a result, the residents may not have been fully informed of the risks and benefits of the psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a quarterly (every 92 days) MDS, assessment for one of two (26), reviewed for Resident Assessment, as required by Federal regulation 42 CFR 483.20 (d). This failure had the potential for Resident 26's ongoing clinical status to go unrecognized and unmonitored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of four residents (69), reviewed for shower ADL care. As a result, there a was potential for Resident 69 to feel unclean and to have unidentified skin issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one of one sampled resident (211), received quality of care when the surgical sutures were not removed. This failure had the potential for Resident 211 to develop an infection post operatively due to not receiving continuity of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pressure relieving mattress (LAL-low air loss) was programmed based on the resident's weight for one of six residents reviewed for pressure ulcer (18). This failure had the potential for Resident 18's Stage 3 pressure ulcer (Full thickness tissue loss) on the sacral (in the lower back) region to worsen and develop complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon the pharmacist's recommendation for the use of as needed psychotropic medication (a medication which affects the mind) for two of four sampled residents (44, 81) for unnecessary medication. This failure had the potential for missed opportunities to identify the use of unnecessary psychotropic medication for Resident 44 and 81.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the use of PRN psychotropic medication (a medication which affects the mind) was limited to 14 days for one of four sampled residents (44) reviewed for unnecessary medications. As a result, there was a potential risk for Resident 44 to have received an unnecessary medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medications were secured in a shared bathroom when a medications were found in the a bag labeled for Resident's 69. This failure had a potential for other residents, visitors and unauthorized staff to have access to Resident 69's medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain one of two freezers (stand alone) reviewed for kitchen sanitation. This failure had the potential for cross-contamination which could result in food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately document a shower provided for one of 24 sampled residents (69), reviewed for documentation. As a result, Resident 69's medical record contained inaccurate documentation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (68) was treated with respect and dignity during meals, when a staff member stood above them while the resident was fed. This failure violated the resident's rights to be treated with respect and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 2 sampled residents (34, 27), were care planned for comfort and proper body alignment in bed. This had the potential to result in discomfort and a decline in range of motion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure interventions were implemented to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (injury to skin from prolonged pressure) for one of eight (284) sampled residents. This had the potential to contribute to Resident 284's development of pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident needs were addressed promptly when their call lights were answered for two residents interviewed on initial tour of the facility, and five of 12 residents from the confidential group interview. This failure had the potential to affect the physical and psychosocial well-being of these residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow manufacturer's guidelines for keeping soup bowls hot when serving. As a result of this deficient practice, there was a potential for the soup bowls to not maintain there insulation properities which could affect the temperature of food placed inside the bowls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to correctly label the resident's medical progress records for four of four sampled residents of Physician 1 (43, 68, 22, 24). This failure had the potential for the resident's medical information to be misplaced and not accessible to the healthcare providers when needed.
19 fire safety citations on file: 8 on April 17, 2025, 4 on July 22, 2021, 7 on March 8, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 18, 2026 | Fine | $9,110 |
| October 19, 2023 | Fine | $11,391 |
| October 19, 2023 | Payment Denial | 13 days from November 17, 2023 |
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) | 3.96 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.46 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.61 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.36 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.14 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.6% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 58.8% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.48 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 4.10 on weekdays and 3.61 on weekends, 12% 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 4.49 in April to June 2025 to 3.96 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 | 3.96 | 0.46 | 4.10 | 3.61 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 151 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.15 | 0.49 | 4.31 | 3.76 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 150 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.46 | 0.46 | 4.66 | 3.96 | 3.0% | 0 of 92 | 143 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.49 | 0.43 | 4.72 | 3.91 | 4.0% | 0 of 91 | 147 |
| 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 | 5.4 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 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 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.7 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.0 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.3 | 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 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Reo Vista Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (63.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
63.5% 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. 200 eligible stays.
9.3% 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. 217 eligible stays.
8.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · California: 8 better, 48 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 129 eligible stays.
74.0% 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. 262 residents counted.
0.5% 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. 404 residents counted.
1.9% 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. 404 residents counted.
95.0% 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. 141 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: LILAC HOLDINGS, LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hudson River Opco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/05/2021 |
| Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/05/2021 |
| Ordonez, Nelda | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 11/01/2022 | |
| Burrup, Patrick | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/06/2022 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Burrup, Patrick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/06/2022 |
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.