CaliforniaSan Leandro

All Saint's Maubert

15731 Maubert Avenue, San Leandro, CA 94578 · Alameda County · 14 certified beds · avg 13 residents/day · certified since Feb 21, 2013 · 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: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$131,856
Fines, last 3 years
3.82
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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Mar 25, 2025 · F-0880 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.

Severity (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: Apr 14, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (27)

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
Aug 22, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Aug 22, 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.
Aug 22, 2025E · 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 22, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 22, 2025E · 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 22, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Aug 22, 2025D · 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.
Aug 22, 2025D · 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.
Mar 25, 2025▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, 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. · from a complaint
Mar 25, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · from a complaint
Mar 25, 2025E · 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. · from a complaint
Feb 5, 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
Oct 26, 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.
Oct 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Oct 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Oct 26, 2023E · 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.
Oct 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Oct 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Oct 26, 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.
Oct 26, 2023D · 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.
Oct 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Oct 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status.
Oct 13, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 13, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Oct 13, 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 (12 → 8).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202230E
2023120F
202410D
2025111L ▲

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)

1 fine totaling $131,856.

DateTypeAmount / length
Mar 25, 2025Fine$131,856

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)3.824.313.95bottom 28% in California; top 47% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.120.610.69top 8% in California; top 12% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.523.903.50bottom 32% in California; top 41% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)1.900.510.48top 3% in California; top 1% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)46.436.745.8bottom 21% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)37.538.142.9top 50% in California; top 42% 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 8.06, RN 2.36, weekend 7.41. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: —/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Muppu, ManjulaIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2023
Stock, StevenIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE04/08/2024

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
All Saint's Subacute & Transitional Care0.0 miSan Leandro, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Alameda County Medical Center D/P SNF0.2 miSan Leandro, CA★★★★★5/5
Washington Center1.1 miSan Leandro, CA★★★★★5/5
Valley Pointe Nursing & Rehabilitation Center1.7 miCastro Valley, CA★★★★★4/5
East Bay Post-Acute1.7 miCastro Valley, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Morton Bakar Center2.1 miHayward, CA★★★★★5/5
San Leandro Healthcare Center2.1 miSan Leandro, CA★★★★☆4/5
Bancroft Healthcare Center2.2 miSan Leandro, CA★★★☆☆4/5
Jones Convalescent Hospital2.3 miSan Leandro, CA★★★★☆4/5
Golden Harbor Healthcare Center2.4 miHayward, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
St Francis Healthcare Center2.4 miHayward, CA★★★★☆3/5
Driftwood Healthcare Center - Hayward2.5 miHayward, CA★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in San Leandro →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555879.