Home / California / Costa Mesa
340 Victoria Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 · Orange County · (949) 642-0387
79 certified beds, about 79 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1971
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 055237 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 23, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 27 health citations since July 2021 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 4.22 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.45 of those hours.
17.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 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 27 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the administration of the controlled medications were accurately documented on the MAR (Medication Administration Record) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). * The facility failed to accurately document the hydrocodone/APAP 5-325 mg (a controlled medication) administration to Resident 1. This failure had the potential for the medications to be administered in error and opportunities for drug diversion or drug misuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure sanitary conditions were maintained and foods were stored in safe conditions. * There were expired food items stored inside the facility's freezer.* The stock pot was observed with black discoloration, warped and dented.* Two ceiling vents were dusty and corroded. Additionally, the meat products stored under the vents were also dusty with yellow stains/discoloration.* One cook did not wear a beard restraint.* One dietary aide placed his hands in a red bucket containing sanitizing solution and a dish rag instead of performing hand hygiene. These failures posed the risk of foodborne illness to the 68 of 68 residents who received food prepared in the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of 17 final sampled residents (Resident 1) maintained the highest practicable well-being. * Resident 1 was transferred inappropriately, via use of Resident 1's armpits and back of Resident 1's pants. * Resident 1's change of condition to her foot was not documented. These failures had the potential to cause injury and not provide appropriate care to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of three final sampled resident (Residents 1 and 7) reviewed for catheter care received the appropriate care and services for an indwelling urinary catheter. * The facility failed to continuously monitor Resident 7 after the resident had a change in condition when the resident's suprapubic catheter was not draining.* The facility failed to ensure Resident 1's indwelling urinary catheter did not touch the floor. These failures had the potential for the residents to develop complications associated with the use of the indwelling urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide adequate and appropriate pain management for one of 17 final sampled residents (Resident 9). * The facility failed to ensure the pain medication was administered per Resident 9's physician's order. This failure had the potential for residents not to receive the appropriate treatment for pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary dialysis care to one of three final sampled residents (Resident 93) reviewed for dialysis care. The facility failed to ensure Resident 93's dialysis access site was accurately assessed. Resident 93 had a vascular dialysis access on the right upper chest, however, the resident was assessed for shunt, and bruit and thrill post-dialysis. In addition, Resident 93's care plan to address the dialysis included monitoring for the fistula. These failures had the potential for Resident 93 not being provided with appropriate dialysis care, and the possibility of medical complications related to dialysis care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmaceutical services as per the facility P&P for one nonsampled resident (Resident 30).* The facility failed to ensure the administration of the controlled medication for Resident 30 was documented on the MAR. This failure had the potential for the medications to be administered in error and opportunities for drug diversion or drug misuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmacy services to ensure proper storage and labeling of medications. * The facility failed to ensure the medical label on the on the bubble pack of losartan (antihypertensive medication) was correct. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 1 did not leave medications unattended at bedside during medication administration observation. * The facility failed to ensure LVN 1 did not leave the medication cart (Medication Cart A) unlocked and unattended. These failures had potential to result in unsafe medication administration, cross-contamination of the medications and post the risk for non-licensed staff to have access to the medicationsFindings: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to determine if it was safe for a resident to self-administer the medication for one of 17 final sampled residents (Resident 26). Resident 26 was observed with a medication at the bedside. Resident 26 had no physician's order, assessment, or a care plan in place for self-administration of medications. This failure had the potential for Resident 26 to administer the medication inaccurately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the MDS discharge assessment was completed for one nonsampled resident (Resident 86) when the resident was discharged on 3/28/25. This failure posed the risk of not being able to monitor the resident's progress over time.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of 17 final sampled residents (Resident 14) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 43) were provided with the appropriate respiratory care and services. The facility failed to ensure Resident 14 and 43's nebulizer masks and storage bags were changed every seven days. This failure had the potential to affect the respiratory health and well-being of the residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the trash bins were not overflowed with trash. This failure posed the risk of unsanitary conditions and of harboring unwanted pests.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the complete and accurate medical record for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1). * There was no change in condition completed when Resident 1 pulled out the GT and when the GT was reinserted by the physician. This failure had the potential to negatively impact Resident 1's care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an assessment was completed to determine if a resident could safely self-administer, prior to medications being left at the bedside for 1 (Resident #49) of 1 resident reviewed for self-administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was accurate for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for PASARRs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the reasonable accommodations to meet the needs for one of two sampled residents (Residents 1). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 1 was provided with assistance in a timely manner. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the residents' physical and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the call lights were kept within the resident's reach for one nonsampled resident (Resident 464) and one of 18 final sampled residents (Resident 40). This failure led to the residents feeling helpless and upset and posed the risk the residents could not use the call light to summon help.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the privacy for one of 18 final sampled residents (Resident 48). LVN 3 left the privacy curtain open while he injected the medication to Resident 48's abdomen. This failure had the potential to violate the resident's right to privacy by unnecessarily exposing the resident's body during the provision of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate care and services for the use of the GT for one nonsampled resident (Resident 48). The facility failed to ensure Resident 48's fluid order was provided as prescribed by the physician. This posed the risk for Resident 48 to experience complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure accurate accounting and safeguarding of the controlled medications in order to prevent loss, diversion, or accidental exposure. * LVN 3 failed to sign Resident 27's narcotic count sheet for alprazolam (anti-anxiety medication) and Resident 414's narcotic count sheet for hydrocodone (opioid medication for pain) to show when he had administered the medications. Residents 27 and 414's documented remaining counts of tablets on the narcotic count sheets did not reconcile with the actual number of tablets remaining in their medication bubble packs. This posed the risk for loss or diversion of the controlled medications. * The facility failed to ensure the incoming and outgoing licensed nurses assigned to Medication Cart A consistently signed the shift count log. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was below 5%. The medication error rate was 15.38%. * Resident 48 received partial doses of amiodarone (medications for irregular heart beat), docusate sodium (stool softener), magnesium oxide (supplement), and multivitamin (supplement) when some of the medications were leftover in the medication cups. This had the potential for the resident to experience decreased drug efficacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the medications were stored and labeled properly. An undated vial of Tubersol (Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative used in a skin test to aid in diagnosis of tuberculosis infection), an unlabeled cup of a white powdery substance, an unlabeled inhaler, and an unlabeled tube of diclofenac (pain medication) gel were observed in Medication Cart A. This had the potential for unsafe administration of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the medical records were complete for three of 18 final sampled residents (Residents 3, 59 and 564). * The psychiatric consultant's progress notes for 1/4 and 6/25/21, were not in the Resident 59's medical record. * The psychiatric consultant's progress notes for 1/4/21, were not in the Resident 3's medical record. * Resident 564's follow-up urology appointment progress note from 3/24/21, was not in the resident's medical record. These failures had the potential for the residents' medical statuses and plans to not be easily accessible to the multidisciplinary team for continuity of care.
Inspectors wrote3. Medical record review for Resident 5 was initiated on 7/6/21. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. On 7/6/21 at 0730 hours, Resident 5's urinary drainage bag and tubing were observed touching the floor. On 7/6/21 at 1227 hours, CNA 3 was asked to come to Resident 5's room. Resident 5's urinary drainage bag and tubing were observed touching the floor. CNA 3 verified the findings. On 7/8/21 at 1630 hours, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated the urinary drainage bag and tubing should be kept off of the floor to prevent the infections. 4. On 7/6/21 at 0913 hours, a medication administration observation for Resident 46 was conducted with LVN 2. LVN 2 took a stack of medication cups with her bare hands and touched the rim and inside of the cups. LVN 2 placed the medication in each cup. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and facility document review, the facility failed to establish an infection control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment. * The facility failed to ensure the assessment of residents' signs and symptoms were reviewed and documented for appropriateness of antibiotic use in the Infection Control Surveillance logs for the months of March, April and May 2021. This failure posed the risk of inappropriate antibiotic usage and inaccuracy of data.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to complete the comprehensive significant change MDS for one of three closed record residents (Resident 64). This had the potential of not providing the appropriate care and services to Residents 64 based on the resident's current status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the MDS assessment for one of three closed record residents (Resident 65). This had the potential to result in the residents being incorrectly coded as discharge to an acute care hospital.
15 fire safety citations on file: 3 on July 23, 2025, 6 on October 31, 2023, 6 on July 9, 2021.
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) | 4.22 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.45 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.86 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.56 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.20 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 17.9% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 22.2% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.64 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 4.36 on weekdays and 3.86 on weekends, 11% 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 4.41 in April to June 2025 to 4.22 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 | 4.22 | 0.45 | 4.36 | 3.86 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 79 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.39 | 0.50 | 4.52 | 4.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 71 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.54 | 0.54 | 4.75 | 4.02 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 72 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.41 | 0.44 | 4.61 | 3.89 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 74 |
| 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 | 14.1 | 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 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.4 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.7 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.5 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.3 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Victoria Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (57.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.7% this home
No different from 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. 283 eligible stays.
9.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · California: 10 better, 22 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 293 eligible stays.
8.2% 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. 197 eligible stays.
65.1% 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. 63 residents counted.
0.3% 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. 292 residents counted.
2.0% 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. 292 residents counted.
99.1% 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. 109 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: COSTA VICTORIA HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flagstone Healthcare South LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 01/30/2006 | |
| The Ensign Group Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/30/2006 | |
| Bashandy, Hany | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/30/2019 | |
| Yuhas, Michael | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/13/2016 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/30/2006 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Willits, Adam | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Bashandy, Hany | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/30/2019 | |
| Yuhas, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/13/2016 | |
| Port, Barry | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/13/2026 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/01/2003 | |
| Margaret L Woods Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/01/2003 | |
| Wahl Investments, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/01/2003 | |
| Wahl Properties, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/01/2003 | |
| Bashandy, Hany | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/30/2019 | |
| Yuhas, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/13/2016 |
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.