California ›Sacramento

Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

2257 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95825 · Sacramento County · 139 certified beds · avg 134 residents/day · certified since Jul 30, 1996

Part of chain: CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.46
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: 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 (50)

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 17, 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
Jun 1, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Mar 26, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 26, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 26, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Mar 26, 2026E · 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.
Mar 26, 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.
Mar 26, 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.
Mar 26, 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.
Mar 26, 2026E · 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.
Mar 26, 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.
Mar 26, 2026D · 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.
Aug 14, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint
Mar 20, 2025D · 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. · from a complaint
Feb 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jan 10, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Jan 10, 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.
Jan 10, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Jan 10, 2025E · 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.
Jan 10, 2025E · 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.
Jan 10, 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.
Jan 10, 2025E · 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 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff.
Jan 10, 2025E · 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.
Jan 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Jan 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Jan 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Jan 10, 2025D · 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.
Jan 10, 2025D · 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.
Jan 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Jan 10, 2025D · 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.
Jan 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Jan 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 22, 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
Aug 21, 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. · from a complaint
Aug 6, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint
Jun 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
May 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Mar 18, 2024D · 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
Mar 18, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated. · from a complaint
Mar 18, 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. · from a complaint
Feb 7, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Feb 7, 2024D · 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
Feb 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint
Feb 7, 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. · from a complaint
Dec 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
Oct 3, 2023D · 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
Aug 10, 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. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (19 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202340D
2024120E
2025220F
2026120E

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)4.464.313.95top 31% in California; top 24% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.770.610.69top 18% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.043.903.50top 31% in California; top 22% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.620.510.48top 20% in California; top 21% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)45.236.745.8bottom 25% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)36.038.142.9top 48% in California; top 40% 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 4.41, RN 0.77, weekend 4.00. 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: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Belcuig, MagdalenaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Belcuig, MagdalenaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Dudley, AshleyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/18/2023
Dudley, AshleyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/18/2023
Erni, EvelynIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Erni, EvelynIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Hill, ArmandoIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Hill, ArmandoIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Jackson, MatthewIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Jackson, MatthewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Jackson, MatthewIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Jackson, RobertIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Jackson, RobertIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Jackson, RobertIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2019
Juarez, MelanieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/16/2023
Juarez, MelanieIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/16/2023
Kumar, MunishIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Kumar, MunishIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Portela, AliciaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2024
Portela, AliciaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/1992

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
Woodside Healthcare Center0.5 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Sherwood Healthcare Center1.7 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Gramercy Court2.2 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆2/5abuse
Arden Park Post Acute2.3 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
McKinley Park Care Center2.7 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
Saylor Lane Healthcare Center2.8 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
University Post-Acute Rehab2.9 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Advanced Health Care of Sacramento3.1 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute3.2 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Bridgewood Post Acute4.4 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Mission Carmichael Healthcare Center4.8 miCarmichael, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Pioneer House4.9 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 555673.