CaliforniaSpring Valley

Amaya Springs Health Care Center

8625 Lamar Street, Spring Valley, CA 91977 · San Diego County · 50 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Feb 1, 1974

Part of chain: PACIFIC HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (15 facilities, chain avg rating 1.9★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.32
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: 3/5

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 (33)

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 22, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint
Jun 22, 2026D · 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
Jan 29, 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.
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough staff with the right skills to meet the mental and behavioral health needs of its residents, such as those living with dementia or depression.
Jan 29, 2026D · 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.
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Apr 15, 2025D · 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
Jan 28, 2025D · 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. · from a complaint
Oct 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
Sep 13, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal.
Sep 13, 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.
Sep 13, 2024D · 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.
Sep 13, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 13, 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.
Sep 13, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Jun 18, 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 5, 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. · from a complaint
Dec 18, 2023D · 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
Aug 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 18, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Feb 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Feb 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Feb 18, 2022D · 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.
Feb 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offWhen a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care.
Feb 18, 2022D · 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.
Feb 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Feb 18, 2022D · 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.
Feb 18, 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.
Feb 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have firmly secured handrails on both sides of its hallways.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (6 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022130E
202320D
202490D
202520D
202670E

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)3.324.313.95bottom 5% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.350.610.69bottom 20% in California; bottom 15% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.953.903.50bottom 3% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.360.510.48bottom 47% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.036.745.8
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9

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 4.29, RN 0.45, weekend 3.81. Staffing rating: 1/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Katz Healthcare Investment PartnershipOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest5%11/10/2006
Pacific Healthcare Holdings, INC.Organization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest80%11/10/2006
Bruce, TrevorIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/29/2023
Bruce, TrevorIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/29/2023
Eretz Be Properties LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/04/2008
Jalil, AnmarIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/27/2021
Jalil, AnmarIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/27/2021
Rechnitz, ShlomoIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/10/2006
Rechnitz, ShlomoIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/10/2006
Rechnitz, ShlomoIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/10/2006
Rockport Administrative Services, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2006
Rockport Administrative Services, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/06/2025

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
Lemon Grove Care and Rehabilitation Center0.8 miLemon Grove, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Brighton Place Spring Valley1.1 miSpring Valley, CA★★☆☆☆3/5
Bella Vista Health Center1.2 miLemon Grove, CA★★★★☆4/5
La Mesa Healthcare Center1.8 miLa Mesa, CA★★★★★4/5
Community Care Center2.1 miLa Mesa, CA★★★★☆4/5
Mount Miguel Covenant Village2.5 miSpring Valley, CA★★★☆☆4/5
Parkway Hills Nursing & Rehabilitation2.7 miLa Mesa, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Arbor Hills Nursing Center2.7 miLa Mesa, CA★★★★★4/5
Grossmont Hospital D/P SNF2.8 miLa Mesa, CA★★★★★5/5
Grossmont Gardens Healthcare Center2.8 miLa Mesa, CA—/5
Grossmont Post Acute Care3.0 miLa Mesa, CA★★★★☆4/5
Country Manor la Mesa Healthcare Center3.3 miLa Mesa, CA★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Spring Valley →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056062.