California ›Berkeley

Ashby Care Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

2270 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 (opens Google Maps) · Alameda County · (510) 841-9494· 31 certified beds · avg 22 residents/day · certified since May 13, 1991 · 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 →

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 22, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 10, 2024
$66,134
Fines, last 3 years
—
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: 2/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 10, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: May 9, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 13, 2023 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint

The 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.

Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Oct 31, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 39 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint F-0679

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · from a complaint F-0565

  3. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint F-0679

View all 39 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 9, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint · F-0679
Mar 5, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · from a complaint · F-0565
Mar 5, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint · F-0679
May 22, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
May 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0578
May 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638
May 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730
May 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801
May 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
May 22, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
May 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
May 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882
May 22, 2025B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912
May 8, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0761
May 8, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 10, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0684
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925
Oct 20, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0636
Oct 20, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638
Oct 20, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0640
Oct 20, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Oct 20, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 20, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 20, 2023B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912
Oct 13, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0656
Jun 16, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jun 16, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0636
Jun 16, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Jun 16, 2021B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (18 → 10).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 19
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202140E
2023191G ▲
202411G ▲
2025120F
202630E

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $66,134, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Apr 10, 2024Fine$66,134
Apr 10, 2024Payment Denial8 days from May 1, 2024

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: Not reported
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: Not reported
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: Not reported
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)—4.313.95—
Registered Nurse hours—0.610.69—
Weekend total nurse staffing—3.903.50—
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)—0.510.48—
Total nursing staff turnover (%)21.736.745.8top 10% in California; top 4% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)—38.142.9—

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 —, RN —, weekend —.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (— here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.

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

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Ashby Care 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 - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Santiago, MarilynIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%10/01/2006
MMS Quality Nursing Services, INC.OrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
MMS Quality Nursing Services, INC.OrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2025
Santiago, EdwardIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
Santiago, EdwardIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
Santiago, EdwardIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
Santiago, MarilynIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
Santiago, MarilynIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2006
Santiago, MarilynIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2006
Santiago-Cade, Adora RoseIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
Santiago-Cade, Adora RoseIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
Santiago-Cade, Adora RoseIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
Santiago-So, Ruby AnnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2019
Santiago-So, Ruby AnnIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2020
Snipes, TyroneIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2012
Snipes, TyroneIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2012
Welden, ElnaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006
Welden, ElnaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2006

All 18 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "Can I see this month's activities calendar, and what do you offer residents who can't leave their rooms?"
  • "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
  • "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
  • "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
  • "How do you track that every resident's quarterly assessment happens on time?"
  • "How often do you evaluate your nurse aides and what ongoing training do they receive?"

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 22% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 18 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 118 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Elmwood Care Center0.2 miBerkeley, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Kyakameena Care Center0.4 miBerkeley, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Berkeley Pines Skilled Nursing Center0.6 miBerkeley, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Chaparral House1.4 miBerkeley, CA★★★★★4/5
The Rehabilitation Center of Oakland2.0 miOakland, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Piedmont Gardens Health Facility2.3 miOakland, CA★★★★★5/5
Oakland Healthcare & Wellness Center2.5 miOakland, CA★★★★★4/5
McClure Post Acute2.6 miOakland, CA★★★★★5/5
Medical Hill Healthcare Center2.6 miOakland, CA★★★★★4/5
St Paul's Towers3.0 miOakland, CA★★★★★4/5
Lake Merritt Healthcare Center LLC3.0 miOakland, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Lake Park Healthcare Center3.5 miOakland, CA★★★☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Alameda, CA — 69 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Berkeley →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555466.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details