California ›Martinez

Alhambra Post Acute

331 Ilene Street, Martinez, CA 94553 · Contra Costa County · 44 certified beds · avg 42 residents/day · certified since Dec 8, 1987

Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.86
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 (45)

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
Jun 3, 2026D · 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
Apr 23, 2026E · 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.
Apr 23, 2026E · 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.
Apr 23, 2026E · 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.
Apr 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign.
Apr 23, 2026B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Mar 9, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint
Mar 9, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). · from a complaint
Nov 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Nov 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Nov 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide at least one adequately sized room for dining and activities, with good lighting, airflow, and furniture.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 21, 2024D · 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.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience.
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 2024D · 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.
Nov 21, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
May 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint
Apr 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 1, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Dec 1, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately.
Dec 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023E · 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.
Dec 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023E · 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.
Dec 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Dec 1, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Nov 7, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 8).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023210F
2024130E
2026110E

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)3.864.313.95bottom 31% in California; top 46% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.040.610.69top 10% in California; top 14% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.263.903.50bottom 14% in California; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.970.510.48top 8% in California; top 6% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)36.036.745.8top 49% in California; top 26% 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 4.32, RN 1.17, weekend 3.65. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Murray, JasonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Olson, JonIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Olson, JonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023

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
Legacy Post Acute Care2.5 miMartinez, CA★★★★★4/5
Bayberry Skilled Nursing & Healthcare Center5.3 miConcord, CA★★★★☆3/5
Rosewood Post Acute6.1 miPleasant Hill, CA★★★★☆4/5
Willow Pass Healthcare Center6.3 miConcord, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Pleasant Hill Post Acute6.4 miPleasant Hill, CA★★★★☆3/5
Concord Post Acute6.5 miConcord, CA★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Diablo Valley Post Acute7.1 miConcord, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
La Casa via Transitional Care Center7.9 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★★4/5
Tampico Healthcare Center8.0 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★☆3/5
Heartwood Avenue Healthcare8.0 miVallejo, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Shadelands Post Acute8.1 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★☆3/5
Orinda Care Center, LLC8.3 miOrinda, CA★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Martinez →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555292.