Home / California / Baldwin Park
14318 Ohio Street, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 · Los Angeles County · (626) 960-1971
98 certified beds, about 91 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1975
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 056466 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 24, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 45 health citations since February 2024 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 4.07 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.36 of those hours.
19.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to David Johnson, an affiliated group of 48 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 45 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for two of two sampled residents (Residents 5 and 12) in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Call lights: Accessibility and Timely Response. These failures had the potential for Residents 5 and 12 not to receive necessary care and services in a timely manner and placed the residents at risk for falls/injury
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement specific, comprehensive, and individualized person-centered care plans to meet the residents' needs for three of three sampled residents (Residents 13, 100 and 42) by failing to: a. Accurately identify specific activity intervention for Resident 13.b.1 and b.2. Identify and implement specific CP interventions that reflect Resident 100's actual and specific needs.c. Develop an individualized care plan to address scaling and stiffness of Resident 42's bilateral lower extremities (BLE) after application of A&D ointment on 3/18/2026. These failures resulted in the residents not receiving individualized care to maintain the residents' highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for residents with indwelling catheter (including suprapubic catheter [a thin, flexible tube inserted through a small abdominal incision into the bladder to drain urine], nephrostomy tube [a thin, flexible catheter inserted through the skin on the lower back into the kidney to drain urine], or a Foley catheter [a soft, flexible tube inserted through the urethra or abdominal wall into the bladder to continuously drain urine into an external bag] ) for two of three sampled residents (Residents 6 and 55) by failing to: a. Ensure Resident 6's suprapubic catheter tubing was secured on Resident 6's thigh.b. Ensure Resident 55's Foley catheter tubing was secured on Resident 55's thigh. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: a. Provide necessary care and services for gastrostomy tube (GT, a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition/medication directly to the stomach) site as ordered by the physician and as indicated in the plan of care for one of two sampled residents (Resident 3).b. Elevate the resident's head of the bed (HOB) while receiving feeding formula through the GT in accordance with the resident's plan of care and physician's order for one of two sampled residents (Resident 65). These failures had the potential to result in complications related to tube feedings for Residents 53 and 65.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe food storage practices in one of one facility kitchen, by failing to: a. Discard an open loaf of wheat bread beyond its use-by-date (the last date the food was considered safe to eat) of 4/20/2026 in the kitchen bread storage area. b. Discard an open plastic container of baking soda beyond its use-by-date of 4/15/2026 in the kitchen dry storage area. c. Discard an open pack of tortilla beyond its use-by-date of 4/19/2026 in the kitchen walk-in refrigerator. d. Discard a tray of grilled cheese sandwiches and pizzas beyond its use-by-date of 4/20/2026 in the kitchen walk-in refrigerator. These deficient practices had the potential to result in food-borne illnesses (illness caused by ingesting contaminated food or beverages) for the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, for two of two sampled residents (Residents 11 and 100), the licensed nurse failed to timely document on the residents' medical record: a. Resident 11's respiratory assessment on 4/21/2026. b. Resident 100's ampicillin (medication to kill bacteria) administration on 4/22/2026. These deficient practices had the potential to result in lack of communication between staff and delay and interrupt the provision of care needed to maintain the residents' highest practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and follow infection prevention procedures to prevent the transmission of infectious organisms for two of three sampled residents (Residents 100 and 101) by failing to: a. Ensure the licensed nurse accurately label Resident 100's midline dressing (a clean cover that protected the midline [small tube in a vein that gave fluids or medicine] site) on 4/21/2026. b. Ensure Resident 101's Care Giver 1 (CG1) wore the required personal protective equipment (PPE - clothing and equipment to provide protection against hazardous substances and/or environments) while providing care to Resident 101 who was on Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP- extra safety steps using gown and gloves to stop germs from spreading during close care of the resident). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the identifiable health information (any information that could be used to identify the individual, such as the full name, date of birth , etc.) on the ampicillin (medication to kill germ) intravenous (IV- medicine or fluid that went straight into a vein) bag to be exposed for one of one sampled resident (Resident 100). This deficient practice had the potential to result in unauthorized disclosure of Resident 100's personal information to unauthorized users resulting in breach of privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Dietary recommendation by the facility's Registered Dietician was acted upon for one of one sampled resident (Resident 3) in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Nutritional and Dietary Supplements This deficient practice had the potential to result in adverse consequences for Resident 3.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for a resident on oxygen therapy (treatment that provides supplemental, or extra oxygen) and breathing treatments (medicine delivered via nebulizer [device that turns liquid medicine into fine mist]) in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of two sampled residents (Resident 22). This failure placed Resident 22 at risk of infections which could lead to respiratory complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 4) had a safe and clutter-free room environment when:1. Resident 4's room was full of clutter on top of and alongside Resident 4's bed.2. Multiple packs of cigarettes were inside Resident 4's bedside drawer.3. Resident 4 had medications at the bedside without a physician's order and without locked storage for medications at the bedside. This failure placed Resident 4 at risk for danger of falls and injuries, and risk of fire with a cluttered area of flammable materials (ability to ignite easily and burn rapidly) on top of and alongside Resident 4's bed. This failure also had the potential for Resident 4 and other residents to have an unmonitored adverse reaction to medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was assessed for readmission to the first available bed in a semi-private room after Resident 1 was transferred to General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) 1 on 7/22/2025, in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, readmission to Facility, when the facility failed to request Resident 1's updated information and referral from GACH 1 on 7/31/2025 after GACH 1 contacted the facility regarding Resident 1's readmission to the facility. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 remaining in GACH 1 from 7/31/2025 through 8/6/2025 following an inquiry from GACH 1 for Resident 1 to be transferred back to the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility's policy on Advance Directives (AD, written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment made to ensure those wishes are carried out should the person be unable to communicate them to a doctor) for three of three sampled residents (Residents 17, 28 and 31) by failing to: 1. Ensure Residents 28 and 31's Advance Directive Acknowledgement Form (ADA) was filled out. 2. Ensure a copy of Resident 17's AD was in the medical chart. These failures had the potential for Residents 17, 28 and 31's preferences not carried out by the facility staff, affecting the residents quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a specific and individualized person-centered care plan to meet the needs of trauma (a psychological and physiological response to an overwhelming, distressing, or life-threatening event or series of events) survivor residents for two of two sampled residents (Residents 17 and 54). These failures had the potential for Residents 17 and 54 not to receive the necessary care, treatment, and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure for infection control and prevention for three of five sampled residents (Residents 10, 59, and 74), by failing to: a. Ensure Staff wore the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE- minimizes exposure to hazards) while providing care five residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP- infection control measures that use gowns and gloves to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms) while providing care to Resident 74. b. Ensure an appropriate signage indicating Resident 59's transmission-based precaution (TBP, set of infection control guidelines used in healthcare settings to prevent the spread of infectious diseases than can be transmitted through contact with an infected person) was posted outside the resident's room. c. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Informed Consent, for the use of wander guard alarm (a system of wearable bracelets and sensors that helps keep residents safe in healthcare facilities) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 59). This failure violated Resident 59's right and placed Resident 59 at risk for psychological distress related to the discomfort from wearing the alarm and the sound of the alarm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call light was within reach for one of one sampled resident (Resident 89). This failure had the potential for Resident 89 not to received necessary care and services and put Resident 89 at risk for fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete the Level I Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for one of 21 sampled residents (Resident 5) that were in the facility for more than 30 days. This failure had the potential to place the resident at risk for delayed care and to not receive care and services for a mental or intellectual disability.
Inspectors wroteBased interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan (CP) for the use of Zoloft (medication used to treat depression [persistent feelings of sadness and worthlessness and a lack of desire to engage in formerly pleasurable activities]) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 41). This failure had the potential for inconsistency of care for Resident 41 and risk for unnecessary psychotropic medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the resident with management for constipation for five days (2/15/25, 2/16/25, 2/17/25, 2/18/25, 2/19/25) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 142). This failure resulted in a delay in receiving necessary care & services to manage Resident 142 constipation and had the potential to result in adverse consequences for Resident 142.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility's policy on foley catheter (FC, thin flexible tube that is inserted into the bladder to drain urine) care for one of one sampled resident (Resident 50) by failing to ensure the FC port was changed when visibly soiled and ensure a FC securement device was placed as ordered. These failures had the potential to put Resident 50 at risk for infection and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 16) who was receiving tube feeding (TF, liquid form of nutrients given to people who cannot eat or drink by mouth safely) through a gastrostomy tube (G-tube, a tube inserted through the wall of the abdomen directly into the stomach, can be used to give nutrition and/or drugs), did not have the TF running while the resident was being changed in the supine (lying horizontally on the back with face and torso upward) position. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 16 aspirating (when small particles of food or drops of liquid are breathed into the lungs), which could cause aspiration pneumonia (an infection that occurs in the lungs due to aspiration) and other serious complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of seven sampled residents (Resident 22) had pharmacy recommendations that were signed and dated by the attending physician. This deficient practice had the potential to result in a delay in necessary services, poor continuity of care, and a delay in follow-up on the resident's status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staffing information on the Nurse Staffing Sheet (posted information that contains the facility's current resident census and total number and actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff) was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors for one of two nursing stations. This failure resulted in nurse staffing information being inaccessible to other residents at the opposite side of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the informed consent was signed for the use of Trazodone 50 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement) every night for insomnia (difficulty falling asleep) for one of five sampled residents (Resident 31). This failure had the potential for unnecessary psychotropic medication (drug affecting how the brain works and causes changes in mood, feelings and behavior) for Resident 31.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse (willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 1). Resident 1 was hit by Family Member 1 (FM1- Resident 1's brother) during visitation on 5/21/24. This deficient practice resulted in discoloration of Resident 1's right lower lip and left temporal (side) area of the face.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to obtain written informed consent for three of five sampled residents (Residents 81, 85 and 5) for the use of psychotropic (any medication capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior) medication. These deficient practices had a potential for Residents 81, 85 and 5 to not receive adequate information regarding the use of psychotropic medication, necessary to make an informed decision.
Inspectors wroteBased observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to assist resident's activities of daily living for three of three sampled residents (Residents 18, 48 and 49) by failing to: a. Ensure Resident 18 was provided a communication device with the language that the resident understood. b. Ensure Resident 48 was provided a communication device with the language that the resident understood. These deficient practices had the potential for Residents 18 and 48 to not be able to express their needs and receive the necessary care and services. c. Assist Resident 49 who required assistance, encouragement and cueing with eating, during mealtime, in accordance with facility's policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide needed care and services to two of two sampled residents (Residents 239 and 73) that will meet each resident's physical, mental, and psychological needs, when the facility failed to: a. Address Resident 239's edema of the left leg by elevating the leg or provided measures to elevate the affected leg. b. Address elevated blood glucose levels for Resident 73. These deficient practices had the potential to result in negative outcome to Residents 239 and 73, affecting the residents' quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the low air loss mattress (LAL, a bed that alternates pressure to help heal and prevent pressure injuries) was set accurately for two of three sampled residents (Residents 84 and 11) reviewed for pressure ulcers (an injury that breaks down the skin and underlying tissue when an area of skin is placed under pressure). This failure had the potential for Resident 84's and Resident 11's skin conditions to worsen or develop further skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the bed was at the lowest position for two of six sampled residents (Residents 39 and 69) who were assessed as high risk for falls. This deficient practice had the potential to result in injury secondary to falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Attempt appropriate alternatives prior to installing side (bed) rail for two of six sampled residents (Residents 65 and 85). 2. Follow the physician's order for bilateral (on both sides) side rails with length to be at one quarter (rails at the head of the bed that are less restrictive for movement) use as an enabler (bedrails used to aid movement) for one of six sampled residents (Resident 78). These deficient practices had the potential to present a safety hazard and risk of entrapment to Residents 65, 85 and 78.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two sampled residents (Residents 140 and 241) reviewed for the use of antibiotics (medication to treat infection), received the medication with adequate indication for its use. a. Resident 140 did not meet the criteria to receive Cefazolin (an antibiotic medication) intravenously (IV, a way of giving a drug or other substance through a needle or tube inserted into a vein), which started on 2/6/2024, and Maxipime (Cefepime HCl, an antibiotic medication) intravenously, which started on 2/13/2024 for Resident 140's right forearm cellulitis (skin infection) in accordance with the facility's antibiotic stewardship program (a set of commitments and actions designed to optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse events associated with antibiotic use). b. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two bags of meat in a plastic box were not placed directly on the floor in the kitchen preparation area in accordance with facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled Food Storage. This deficient practice had the potential for food borne illnesses (infections caused by ingesting contaminated food or beverages).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff wear required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE - equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses.) when assisting two of three residents (Resident 33 and Resident 240) with meal. These deficient practices had the potential for the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care in a manner that maintained or enhanced the resident's dignity and respect, by standing in front of the resident while assisting a meal for one of one sampled resident (Resident 49) in accordance with facility's policy on Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity During Mealtimes. This deficient practice had the potential to affect Resident 49's self-esteem and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safety during self-administration of medications for one of one sampled resident (Resident 19.) This deficient practice had the potential to result in unsafe medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of needs for one of one sampled resident (Resident 83) who was at risk for fall, by failing to ensure the resident's call light was within reach as indicated in the facility's Policy and Procedure, titled Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response and the resident's care plan. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 83 not to receive or received delayed care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for one of one sampled resident (Resident 239) with edema (swelling caused by fluid retention) of the left leg. This deficient practice had the potential to result in worsening of edema for Resident 239. Cross Reference:
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to set up the lunch tray for one of one sampled resident (Resident 44) with severely impaired vision. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 44 losing weight and becoming dehydrated (when the body does not have enough fluid to function properly) due to the inability to feed himself.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the nasal cannula (tube which on one end splits into two prongs which are placed in the nostrils to deliver oxygen) was placed properly by placing both nasal prongs in the resident's nostrils for one of one sampled resident (Resident 83) in accordance with the facility's policy titled Oxygen Concentrator. This deficient practice placed Residents 83 at risk for shortness of breath and/or hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the body tissues).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to conduct reassessment after a routine pain medication was administered for one of two sampled residents (Resident 239.) This deficient practice resulted in Resident 239 to continue to experience pain, affecting the resident's quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the irregularities of the Medication Regimen Review (MRR) identified by the facility's Pharmacy Consultant was acted upon for one of five sampled residents (Resident 83) in accordance with facility's policy and procedure titled, Consultant Pharmacist Reports. This deficient practice had the potential for harm due to missed opportunity by the physician and the licensed staff to act upon the reported irregularities.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled staff (Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 [LVN 3]) was aware to report an allegation of abuse to the Long-Term Care Ombudsman (assist residents in long-term care facilities with issues related to day-to-day care) as required by State and Federal regulations. This deficient practice had the potential for facility staff not to report an abuse incident to the Long-Term Care Ombudsman, which could lead to possible harm and risk of further abuse of the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to follow the facility's policy and procedure titled Confidentiality of Personal and Medical Records by ensuring one of one sampled resident (Resident 65) 's identifiable, personal and medical information were not exposed on the computer screen unattended and in view of unauthorized persons to view and access confidential information without the resident's consent or knowledge. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 65's violation of resident's right for privacy.
6 fire safety citations on file: 2 on April 24, 2026, 3 on February 21, 2025, 1 on February 16, 2024.
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) | 4.07 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.36 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.66 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.53 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.19 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 19.3% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.43 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 4.24 on weekdays and 3.66 on weekends, 14% 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 3.94 in April to June 2025 to 4.07 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 | 4.07 | 0.36 | 4.24 | 3.66 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 91 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.01 | 0.34 | 4.16 | 3.63 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.01 | 0.35 | 4.15 | 3.66 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.94 | 0.35 | 4.07 | 3.61 | 0.0% | 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.
| 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 | 4.3 | 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 | 2.4 | 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 | 0.6 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.1 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.1 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.7 | 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 Sierra View Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (33.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
33.8% 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. 100 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 113 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. 97 eligible stays.
92.6% 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. 121 residents counted.
1.0% 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. 204 residents counted.
1.3% 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. 204 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. 6 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: SIERRA VIEW CARE HOLDINGS LLC. CMS links this home to David Johnson, a group of 48 nursing homes averaging 3.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sierra View Care Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 10/30/2008 |
| Casa/Sierra California Associates LP | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 02/11/2025 | |
| Johnson, Frank | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/10/2008 | |
| Dehghanmanesh, Adrian | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Sierra View Care Holdings LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/30/2008 | |
| Sun Mar Management Services | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/12/1989 | |
| Dehghanmanesh, Adrian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2021 | |
| Farrales, Mary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Johnson, Frank | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/10/2008 | |
| Khedia, Sanjay | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/30/2018 | |
| Kochek, Joshua | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Kwok, Whitney | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/27/2018 | |
| Oxford, Micheal | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/03/2022 | |
| Punsalan, Marian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/20/2015 | |
| Casa/Sierra California Associates LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/11/2025 | |
| Cibc Bank USA | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/08/2025 | |
| Sierra View Care Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/30/2008 | |
| Sun Mar Management Services | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/12/1989 | |
| Dehghanmanesh, Adrian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2021 | |
| Farrales, Mary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Johnson, Frank | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/10/2008 | |
| Khedia, Sanjay | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/08/2025 | |
| Kochek, Joshua | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Kwok, Whitney | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/27/2018 | |
| Oxford, Micheal | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/03/2022 | |
| Punsalan, Marian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/20/2015 |
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.