Home / California / Shafter
140 East Tulare Avenue, Shafter, CA 93263 · Kern County · (661) 746-3912
99 certified beds, about 83 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1971
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 056035 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 9, 2026, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since October 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $27,439 in the last three years; the largest was $17,934, and the latest is dated November 19, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.99 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.37 of those hours.
43.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure titled, Response to Falls for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential for staff not identifying Resident 1's decline in condition and potential for delay in care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was 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 accurately complete the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS-part of the U.S. federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents in Medicare or Medicaid certified nursing homes. A comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities is completed) assessment for one of 44 sampled residents (Resident 10). This failure had the potential for Resident 10 to not receive the appropriate required services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure meal preferences were honored for one of 25 sampled residents (Resident 82). This failure had the potential for nutritional needs not to be met for Resident 82.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement effective infection control practices when:Hand hygiene was not provided for two of three sampled residents (Resident 19 and Resident 86) before residents were given their lunch tray. This failure had the potential to spread infection to residents. Dress Code policy was not followed by one of two sampled cooks (Cook 1) in the kitchen. This failure had the potential for food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) Responsible Party (RP) a written notice of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC-a notification letter stating Medicare will no longer pay for services) and ensure NOMNC notice was understood by RP. This resulted in Resident 1 being discharged without being given the right to appeal the NOMNC decision.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure food was dated and stored under sanitary conditions. 2. Ensure food was maintained at safe temperatures. These failures had the potential to result in residents getting food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Informed Consent for eight of eight sampled residents (Resident 31, Resident 38, Resident 44, Resident 46, Resident 49, Resident 75, Resident 76, and Resident 286) receiving psychotherapeutic (affect thought, mood, perception, or behavior) drugs when the resident or resident's representative did not sign the VERIFICATION OF RESIDENT INFORMED CONSENT FOR PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC DRUGS (California) (VRIC) form. This failure had the potential to result in questions regarding if informed consent had been obtained.
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 Performance Evaluation (PE-a process to give employees feedback on their job performance) for two of eight sampled employees (Certified Nursing Assistance [CNA] 3, CNA 4), were completed. This failure had the potential for the staff not be aware of their need for improvement in certain areas, which could affect patient care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure MDS (Minimum Data Set - assessment tool) quarterly (every three months) assessment was completed for one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 77). This failure had the potential for the delay in development and implementation of Resident 77's individualized care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for two of two sampled residents (Resident 66 and Resident 38) with identified serious mental illness diagnoses when an updated PASRR Level 1 was not submitted. This failure had the potential for residents not to receive the specialized mental health services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement one of six sampled residents' (Resident 1) care plan (personalized plan of care outlining a person's needs and how they will be addressed) when the facility did not ensure Resident 1's room was well-lit and Resident 1 was wearing footwear (item of clothing that covers and protects the foot, including the soles of the feet) when walking. These failures resulted in Resident 1 sustaining a nondisplaced fracture (broken bone that did not move out of alignment) of the neck of the right femur (thigh bone) requiring open reduction and internal fixation (surgical procedure that treats severe bone fracture or dislocation by realigning the bones and stabilizing them with internal hardware [tools or devices used in medical procedures]).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of three sampled residents (Resident 2 and Resident 3) discharge care plans were developed. This failure had the potential for Resident 2 and Resident 3 to have unmet care needs upon discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) from financial abuse when: 1. The facility did not have a policy & procedure in place to protect vulnerable residents who do not have the mental capacity to manage their own financial matters. 2. The Social Services Director (SSD), as the perpetrator (culprit/wrongdoer), used Resident 1 ' s credit card (a plastic card you can use to buy goods and services and pay for them later) and debit card (a payment card that can be used in place of cash to make purchases or withdraw cash) without Resident 1 ' s consent when more than $6,500 in unauthorized purchases were made by her (SSD). These failures resulted in Resident 1 being a victim of financial abuse and resulting in over $6,500 in financial loss for Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of financial abuse for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) within 24 hours to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and complete a thorough investigation within five business days. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 experiencing continued financial abuse.
Inspectors wroteDuring an interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Abuse Prevention for two of 15 sampled employees (Licensed Vocational Nurse- LVN 2 and Certified Nursing Assistant- CNA 5) when reference checks were not completed prior to the date of hire. This failure had the potential to place residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure ordered medication for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was administered within the ordered time frame. This had the potential for adverse side effects for Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect one of five sampled residents (Resident 1) from staff verbal abuse. This resulted in staff verbally abused Resident 1 and had the potential to result in psychosocial harm for Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the proper authorities for three of five sampled residents (Resident 1). This violated Resident 1, Resident 2, and Resident 3's patient rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its Policy and Procedure (P&P) for Bed Hold for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This resulted in the facility not allowing Resident 1 to return to the facility after being transferred to the acute hospital for three days and had the potential for psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to permit one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) to return to the facility after three days of hospitalization. This resulted in Resident 1 having an unnecessary stay in the hospital for additional seven days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) toe was monitored when a scab was identified by the Physician and Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 on two different occasions. This had the potential for staff to be unaware of the toe worsening.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure (P&P) on Theft/Loss Prevention for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential for grievances to go unresolved and result in negative consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled Abuse Investigation and Reporting for one of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) This failure had the potential to expose other residents in facility to abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were consistently implemented for two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2). These failures had the potential for Resident 1 to suffer further alleged sexual altercations committed by Resident 2.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, document reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure there was registered nurse (RN) coverage seven days a week for the months of September 2023 and October 2023. This had the potential to affect all residents who resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff did not touch ready-to-eat food with their bare hands. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a dignified meal experience for 3 (Resident #159, Resident #160, Resident #161) of 11 sampled residents who required assistance with their meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident representative for 1 (Resident #152) of 27 sampled residents were invited to the resident's care plan conference meeting.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a bed-side commode (BSC) for 1 (Resident #105) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurate for 4 (Residents #52, #152, #154, and #157) of 27 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #101) of 1 sampled resident received oxygen therapy as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an end date was obtained and documented on the physician's order for as-needed (PRN) psychotropic medications for 2 (Resident #53 and Resident #157) of 5 residents reviewed for psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication that was not administered was not repackaged. Specifically, the facility did not ensure a controlled medication, alprazolam, was not placed back in the medication card and secured with tape. This deficient practice affected 1 (Resident #2) of 8 residents observed for medication administration.
17 fire safety citations on file: 7 on April 9, 2026, 6 on December 19, 2024, 4 on October 26, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 19, 2024 | Fine | $9,505 |
| September 17, 2024 | Fine | $17,934 |
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) | 3.99 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.37 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.64 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.70 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.92 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.1% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 16.7% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.78 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 4.14 on weekdays and 3.64 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 4.73 in April to June 2025 to 3.99 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 | 3.99 | 0.37 | 4.14 | 3.64 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 83 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.74 | 0.34 | 3.86 | 3.44 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 88 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.92 | 0.31 | 4.02 | 3.67 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.73 | 0.28 | 4.84 | 4.46 | 0.0% | 5 of 91 | 70 |
| 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 | 24.1 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 0.4 | 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 | 13.9 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.0 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.6 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.7 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 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 Shafter Nursing Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (28.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
28.1% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · California: 301 better, 190 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 136 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. 154 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 133 eligible stays.
29.8% 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. 47 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 57 residents counted.
1.5% 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. 57 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. 9 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: SHAFTER NURSING REHAB LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frankel, Moishe | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 04/01/2023 |
| Hammami, Mohamed | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 04/01/2023 |
| Levy, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 04/01/2023 |
| Melliti, Rush | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Pease, Nathan | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 04/01/2023 |
| Telmo, Dio | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/17/2020 | |
| Frankel, Moishe | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Hammami, Mohamed | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/17/2019 | |
| Levy, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Melliti, Rush | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Pease, Nathan | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its California inspection record.
These are the official offices in California. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.