How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
2257 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95825 (opens Google Maps) · Sacramento County · (916) 649-2000· 139 certified beds · avg 134 residents/day · certified since Jul 30, 1996 · 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: CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 26, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.46
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 50 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 F-0658
The 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 F-0755
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. F-0558
View all 50 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0658 |
| Jun 1, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0755 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0558 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0688 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0759 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0761 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0690 |
| Aug 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint · F-0925 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0550 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0600 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0803 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0812 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0758 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0759 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0761 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff. · F-0840 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0625 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0687 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0756 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0919 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| Aug 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 · F-0880 |
| Aug 6, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557 |
| Jun 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0609 |
| May 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Mar 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0658 |
| Mar 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0807 |
| Mar 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0880 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0550 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0658 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0880 |
| Dec 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0585 |
| Dec 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · F-0800 |
| Oct 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0658 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0677 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (19 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 22
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 22 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 12 | 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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.46
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.77
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.04
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.46 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 31% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.77 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 18% in California; top 30% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.04 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 31% in California; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.62 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 20% in California; top 21% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 45.2 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 25% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 36.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 48% in California; top 40% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.41 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belcuig, Magdalena | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Belcuig, Magdalena | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Dudley, Ashley | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/18/2023 |
| Dudley, Ashley | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/18/2023 |
| Erni, Evelyn | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Erni, Evelyn | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Hill, Armando | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Hill, Armando | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Jackson, Matthew | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Jackson, Matthew | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Jackson, Matthew | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Jackson, Robert | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Jackson, Robert | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Jackson, Robert | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Juarez, Melanie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/16/2023 |
| Juarez, Melanie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/16/2023 |
| Kumar, Munish | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2019 |
| Kumar, Munish | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2019 |
| Portela, Alicia | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2024 |
| Portela, Alicia | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/1992 |
Showing 20 of 27 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 7 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Cypress Healthcare Group — 13 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Auburn Ravine Healthcare Center — Auburn, CA · overall 5/5
- College Oak Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
- Fair Oaks Healthcare Center — Fair Oaks, CA · overall 3/5
- Gold Country Health Center — Placerville, CA · overall 4/5
- Grass Valley Healthcare Center — Grass Valley, CA · overall 3/5
- Greenhaven Healthcare Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Manzanita Healthcare Center — Carmichael, CA · overall 5/5
- Oak Ridge Healthcare Center — Roseville, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 12 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 45% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 27 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 42 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woodside Healthcare Center | 0.5 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Sherwood Healthcare Center | 1.7 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Gramercy Court | 2.2 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Arden Park Post Acute | 2.3 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| McKinley Park Care Center | 2.7 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Saylor Lane Healthcare Center | 2.8 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| University Post-Acute Rehab | 2.9 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Advanced Health Care of Sacramento | 3.1 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute | 3.2 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Bridgewood Post Acute | 4.4 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Mission Carmichael Healthcare Center | 4.8 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pioneer House | 4.9 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Sacramento, CA — 37 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Bruceville Terrace - D/P SNF of Methodist Hospital — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Capital Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Casa Coloma Health Care Center — Rancho Cordova, CA · overall 2/5
- Cedarwood Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
- Citrus Heights Post Acute — Citrus Heights, CA · overall 4/5
- City Creek Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 5/5
- College Oak Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555673.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).