Home / California / Porterville
350 North Villa Street, Porterville, CA 93257 · Tulare County · (559) 784-6644
99 certified beds, about 91 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 055551 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 15, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
Of 42 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $41,759 in the last three years; the largest was $41,759, and the latest is dated April 17, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.10 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.10 of those hours.
38.0% 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 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change of condition for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when there was significant weight loss. This failure resulted in the physician being unaware of significant weight loss and the potential for Resident 1 to have unmet nutritional needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to:1. Develop a care plan when one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) experienced significant weight loss;2. Implement interventions when significant weight loss was identified for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). These failures resulted in the potential for Resident 1 to have continued weight loss and unmet nutritional needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physicians orders were followed when labs were not completed for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in a delay of care and Resident 1 experiencing lower abdomen (part of the body between the chest and pelvis) pain, requiring transfer to the hospital and being diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI-infection in any part of your urinary system).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide nail care for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in Resident 1 having approximately one-inch fingernails and potential for nail disfigurement and accidental scratches, potentially leading to skin infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pain management interventions were safely implemented and monitored for one of thirty sampled residents (Resident 71). Specifically, licensed nurses failed to appropriately monitor and reassess the resident following administration of prescribed opioid pain medication (morphine sulfate) and failed to identify and respond to adverse effects related to pain treatment. As a result of these failures, Resident 71 experienced opioid-induced over-sedation and respiratory depression, requiring emergency transfer to a general acute care hospital (GACH), treatment for opioid overdose including administration of Narcan (reverses opioid overdose), intubation (insertion of a tube to aid in breathing) for respiratory support, and a seven-day hospitalization beginning 12/12/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not comply with its policy for securely disposing of controlled medications on two of four medication carts. This failure poses a risk of diversion, where legally prescribed controlled substances could be transferred to individuals other than those for whom they were prescribed for illegal use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement appropriate infection control measures when:1. Resident 57's oxygen humidifier bottle was not changed weekly. 2. Clean linen and clean diapers were stored on the floor in a resident's room.3. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 did not wash her hands before and after resident care in room [ROOM NUMBER]. These failures could contribute to the spread of infectious diseases among residents, staff, and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality for two of thirty sampled residents (Resident 51 and Resident 98) when Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 did not follow the policy and procedure titled, Insulin Pen Administration. This failure placed Resident 51 and Resident 98 at risk for insulin dosing errors and had the potential to result in adverse side effects such as hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not adhere to its policy and procedures for one of the 30 sampled residents (Resident 57) when:Resident 57's fingernails and toenails were not trimmed. Resident 57 had untreated lacerations on the right great toe of unknown origin. The physician was not informed about the resident's change in condition. These failures resulted in substandard quality of care for Resident 57.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary environment when one soiled dish towel was placed on the surface of a table tray that contained clean cups. This failure had the potential to result in cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician's order was followed for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in the physician's order being incorrect and the potential for Resident 1's wound to worsen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) who was high risk for falls, had history of falls, and had a diagnosis of Dementia (decline in memory and thinking, severe enough to interfere with daily life) when Resident 1 was left waiting in the room to be toileted for approximately 30 minutes. This failure resulted in Resident 1 falling, sustaining laceration (cut) to the top of the head requiring three staples (little wire), and compression fracture (a type of broken bone that can cause the spine to collapse) of T (thoracic- middle section of spine) 5 (T5- is the fifth bone of the thoracic spine located in the middle of the back).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was scheduled and on duty eight hours a day, seven days a week. This failure had the potential for resident care to be negatively impacted.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's representative and the state long term care ombudsman (representatives who assist residents in long-term care facilities with issues related to day-to day care, health, safety, and personal preferences) were notified, in writing, when two of seven sampled residents (Resident 52 and Resident 82) were transferred to the hospital. This failure resulted in the resident representative and the ombudsman to not be aware of resident's healthcare status and location.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure individualized, person-centered care plans were developed and implemented for three of six residents (Resident 46, Resident 52, and Resident 79). This failure had the potential for care needs to not be met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a communication tool was used for one of one sampled resident (Resident 46) with a speech impairment. This failure had the potential for Resident 46's concerns and needs to be unmet and for her psychosocial health to be negatively impacted.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Repositioning, for three of three sampled residents (Resident 71, and Resident 52) who were dependent on staff to change position or transfer. This failure had the potential to result in further loss of mobility and skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 79) was assessed for a Bowel and Bladder Training program (structured plan designed to help residents regain control over their bowel and bladder functions). This failure had the potential for Resident 79 to be unable to maintain toileting abilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Anti-coagulation [medication used to thin blood] Clinical Protocol to monitor for possible complications for two of two sampled residents (Resident 10 and Resident 57) on an anti-coagulant. This failure had the potential for Resident 10 and Resident 57 to have adverse effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Implement their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Expired Medication for two of two sampled residents (Resident 68 and Resident 41) when expired medications were not removed from medication administration carts. This failure had the potential for expired medications to be administered to Resident 68 and Resident 41. 2. Ensure Resident 15's medications were safely and securely stored from unauthorized personnel and other residents. This failure had the potential for medication to be accessed by unauthorized staff and residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the physician prescribed therapeutic (person-centered) diet for one of one sampled resident (Resident 64) which had the potential for adverse outcomes to Resident 64.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the terms and conditions of the facility's arbitration agreement (a contract in which you agree to settle out of court, any dispute that arises with the other party) was clearly explained to five of eight sampled residents (Resident 26, Resident 57, Resident 70, Resident 80, and Resident 135) in a form and manner that they understood. This failure resulted in Resident 26, Resident 51, Resident 57, Resident 70, Resident 80, and Resident 135 signing the arbitration agreement without fully understanding that they had given up their rights to a court proceeding should a dispute happen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure proper discharge information was provided on a 30-day notice for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). 2. Ensure the Ombudsman was made aware of a facility-initiated discharge for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). These failures resulted in Resident 1 having the incorrect appeal information and the Ombudsman not being aware of the discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), Responsible Party (RP), prior to room change. This failure resulted in violation of Resident 1 ' s rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was referred to a neurologist (a medical specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system) as ordered by the physician. This failure resulted in a delay of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was a full-time licensed Director of Nursing (DON). This failure had the potential for unmet needs for all 94 residents residing at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure on Advance Directives (AD a written instruction, such as living will or durable power of attorney for health care, recognized by the state law) for seven of seven sampled residents (Resident 58, Resident 59, Resident 13, Resident 67, Resident 47, Resident 7, and Resident 17). This failure had the potential to keep the residents uninformed of their rights to have their wishes honored regarding health care decisions during incapacitation (unable to make decisions for ones-self).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was scheduled and in the facility for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven day per week. This failure had the potential to adversely affect resident care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a method of food preparation which maintained nutritive value of food, when pureed (smooth or liquidized) foods were not prepared as close as possible to serving time for four of four sampled residents (Resident 10, Resident 20, Resident 25 and Resident 47). This had the potential to decrease the nutritional value of the food and compromise the resident's nutritional status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to have a functioning call light system in place for three of nine sampled residents (Resident 64, Resident 37, and Resident 67). This failurehad the potential for residents (Resident 37, Resident 64 and Resident 67) not to have their needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Responsible Party (RP) was notified for a change in condition for two of six sampled residents (Resident 48 and Resident 13) when: 1. Resident 48 refused a vaccination (a substance used to protect against certain diseases). 2. Resident 13's RP was not notified of 3 fall incidents on 7/2/23, 8/12/23 and 8/13/23. These failures had the potential for the residents to not receive necessary care and treatment and to develop further medical complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person focused care plan for one of five sampled residents (Resident 57) when Resident 57 did not have a bed in his room. This failure placed Resident 57 at risk of not having his care needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician's orders for two of two sampled residents (Resident 13 and Resident 6) when: 1. Facility staff did not ensure Resident 13's geri sleeves (cloth sleeve used to provide protection for sensitive skin from friction and shearing) were placed in accordance with physicians orders. This failure had the potential to result in bruising, skin tears, or other avoidable injuries to the Resident 13. 2. Facility staff did not ensure Resident 6's oxygen tank was set up to administer the flow rate of oxygen at 3 liters per minute (LPM) as ordered by the physician. This failure had the potential for Resident 6 to experience shortness of breath (SOB) or hypoxia (absence of enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily functions).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer oxygen to one of two sampled residents (Resident 6) according to a physician's order. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 6 experiencing respiratory distress and hypoxia (absence of enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily functions).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the menu as planned for a mechanical soft diet order for one of one sampled residents (Resident 58). This failure resulted in Resident 58's nutritional needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 64) food was served in a form to meet the resident's needs. This had the potential for Resident 64 to not have his nutritional needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary kitchen environment when: 1. Dietary Aid (DA) 2 failed to perform hand hygiene after scraping dirty dishes, before touching a utility cart. 2. DA 3 failed to perform hand hygiene after touching the same utility cart, before picking up a stack of clean plates. 3. DA 4 failed to perform hand hygiene after handling dirty dishes and draining dirty dish water from the sink, before wiping hands on her shirt and touching container in the clean food prep area. These failures had the potential to result in foodborne illness (illness caused by food contaminated with bacteria, viruses, parasites, or toxins) to all of the facility's at-risk population.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene for two of four sampled Residents (Resident 81 and Resident 68) when: 1. One staff member entered Resident 81's room, to administer medication without washing their hands or using hand sanitizer. 2. One staff member entered Resident 68's room to administer medication without washing their hands or using hand sanitizer. These failures had the potential to spread infectious diseases to other residents, staff, and visitors of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide the minimum square footage as required by regulation in six of the facility's bedrooms. This failure had the potential to provide insufficient space in the event of an emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the sling (wraps around and supports the patient who needs transferring with the use a mechanical lift) for the Hoyer lift (mechanical lift that allows a person to be lifted and transferred with a minimum of physical effort) was in good repair for one of 19 sampled residents. This failure resulted in the loop of Resident 1's sling snapping off while Resident 1 was being transferred and Resident 1 falling to the floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was implemented for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when a psychological evaluation was not completed. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to experience subsequent falls.
12 fire safety citations on file: 4 on January 15, 2026, 5 on January 9, 2025, 3 on October 12, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 17, 2025 | Fine | $41,759 |
| April 17, 2025 | Payment Denial | 18 days from June 6, 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) | 4.10 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.10 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.74 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.87 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.13 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 38.0% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.92 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 4.25 on weekdays and 3.74 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.88 in April to June 2025 to 4.10 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 | 4.10 | 0.10 | 4.25 | 3.74 | 0.9% | 0 of 90 | 91 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.07 | 0.09 | 4.17 | 3.83 | 0.4% | 3 of 92 | 91 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.00 | 0.10 | 4.11 | 3.70 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 86 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.88 | 0.09 | 3.97 | 3.67 | 0.1% | 0 of 91 | 93 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| California, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.36 | 0.59 | 4.52 | 3.97 | 2.3% | 0.5% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| California, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.90 | $22.04 to $26.35 | 110,060 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.34 | $35.98 to $45.06 | 82,850 |
| Registered nurses | $67.44 | $58.87 to $83.25 | 338,940 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | California | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.6 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.0 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.2 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.3 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.0 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sequoia Transitional Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (58.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.8% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · California: 301 better, 190 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 140 eligible stays.
10.2% 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. 155 eligible stays.
9.6% 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. 96 eligible stays.
92.7% 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. 41 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: California0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 77 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. 77 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. 8 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: SUN VILLAIDENCE OPCO, LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providence Group of California LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2014 |
| Providence Group Nh, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/30/2023 |
| Hasnain, Abbas | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Murphy, Cory | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/26/2022 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Hancock, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in California. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.