CaliforniaSacramento

Advanced Health Care of Sacramento

1411 Expo Parkway, Sacramento, CA 95815 · Sacramento County · 40 certified beds · avg 39 residents/day · certified since Aug 26, 2019

Part of chain: ADVANCED HEALTH CARE (26 facilities, chain avg rating 4.8★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.07
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (26)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 14, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Jul 25, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jul 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jul 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Jul 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Jul 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
May 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Dec 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Aug 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · from a complaint
Aug 9, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Aug 9, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Aug 9, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Aug 9, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Aug 9, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Aug 9, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Aug 9, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Jul 29, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Jun 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Jun 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Jun 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · from a complaint
Apr 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Dec 16, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Dec 16, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 16, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Dec 16, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Dec 16, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202250E
2024140E
202560F
202610D

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.074.313.95top 13% in California; top 12% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.600.610.69top 3% in California; top 4% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.013.903.50top 33% in California; top 22% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)1.290.510.48top 5% in California; top 3% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)30.236.745.8top 30% in California; top 14% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)40.038.142.9bottom 47% in California; top 46% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 6.06, RN 1.92, weekend 4.80. Staffing rating: 5/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: —/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
New Ahc Holdings, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%12/31/2023
The Gail Miller GST TrustOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest70%12/31/2023
The Miller Utah Trust, Dated August 22, 2019Organization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest5%12/31/2023
The RNC Opportunity TrustOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest5%12/31/2023
Javaheri, AshkanIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Oxnam, NathanIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Walker, JonathanIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/02/2018

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Sherwood Healthcare Center1.7 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
McKinley Park Care Center1.8 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute1.9 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Saylor Lane Healthcare Center2.2 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
Pioneer House2.7 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
University Post-Acute Rehab2.8 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Woodside Healthcare Center2.9 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center3.1 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5
North Pointe Care Center3.2 miSacramento, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Windsor Care Center of Sacramento3.2 miSacramento, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Gramercy Court3.3 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆2/5abuse
Arden Park Post Acute4.3 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Sacramento →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555913.