Adventist Health Delano
1401 Garces Hwy, Delano, CA 93215 · Kern County · 51 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Jan 16, 1974 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: ADVENTIST HEALTH (5 facilities, chain avg rating 4.0★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$123,442
Fines, last 3 years
3.03
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 3, 2025 · F-0685 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Why it matters: Untreated vision and hearing problems lead to falls, isolation, and confusion that could be avoided.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Oct 29, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 9, 2024 · F-0687 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults.
Why it matters: Neglected feet can develop painful sores and infections, especially dangerous for residents with diabetes.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Dec 27, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (59)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| Jun 1, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jun 1, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Jun 1, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. |
| Jun 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Jun 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Jun 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. |
| Jun 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jun 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Nov 19, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint |
| Nov 5, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint |
| Aug 20, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| Jul 3, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · from a complaint |
| Jul 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a proper governing body legally responsible for its policies and operations, or that body failed to appoint a properly licensed administrator to manage the facility. · from a complaint |
| Apr 10, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials. |
| Apr 10, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
| Apr 10, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. |
| Jan 29, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint |
| Jan 29, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint |
| Jan 21, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The 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 |
| Jan 21, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint |
| Jan 21, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · from a complaint |
| Jan 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Jan 8, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| Oct 9, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · from a complaint |
| Oct 9, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint |
| Oct 9, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint |
| Jul 9, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| May 22, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint |
| May 22, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| May 22, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Mar 26, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint |
| Mar 6, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Feb 1, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint |
| Feb 1, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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 |
| Feb 1, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint |
| Jan 19, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint |
| Jan 19, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint |
| Jan 19, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint |
| Sep 29, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 8).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 30 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 19 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 9 | 0 | E |
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)
2 fines totaling $123,442, plus 2 Medicare payment denial periods.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2025 | Fine | $77,740 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | Payment Denial | 59 days from Sep 12, 2025 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | Fine | $45,702 |
| Jan 19, 2024 | Payment Denial | 56 days from Apr 19, 2024 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.03 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 1% in California; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 29% in California; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.85 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 2% in California; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.18 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 6% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 25.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 17% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 5.9 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 4% in California; top 2% 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 6.42, RN 1.36, weekend 6.04. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Who owns this facility
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banks, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Cherry, Robert | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Davis, Andrew | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Fehr, Joy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2020 |
| Freedman, John | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Heinrich, Kerry | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Hofheins, Todd | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2021 |
| Innocent, Larry | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Newton, Bradford | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2021 |
| Ocampo, Lucy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Reiner, Richard | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Salazar, Velino | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
| Wells, Jason | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/23/2023 |
| Wells, Jason | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/23/2023 |
| Woodson, Marc | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2019 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you arrange eye and hearing care for residents, including appointments and equipment like glasses or hearing aids?"
- "How is routine foot care handled here, and does a podiatrist visit regularly?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How does your quality improvement program work, and can you share a recent example of a problem you found and fixed?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delano District Skilled Nursing Facility | 0.1 mi | Delano, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Valley View Care Center | 1.1 mi | Delano, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Shafter Nursing Care | 17.7 mi | Shafter, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056426.