Ashby Care Center

Name: Ashby Care Center
Address: 2270 ASHBY AVENUE, Berkeley, CA, 94705, US
Telephone: 5108419494

2270 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 · Alameda County · 31 certified beds · avg 22 residents/day · certified since May 13, 1991

2/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$66,134

Fines, last 3 years

0.00

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)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

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

▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

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

All citations in the current public record (39)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Jun 9, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Mar 5, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Mar 5, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
May 22, 2025	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
May 22, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
May 22, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
May 22, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
May 22, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
May 22, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
May 22, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
May 22, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
May 22, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
May 22, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
May 8, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
May 8, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Apr 10, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The 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
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The 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.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Oct 20, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Oct 20, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Oct 20, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Oct 20, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Oct 20, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Oct 20, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 20, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 20, 2023	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Oct 13, 2023	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Jun 16, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jun 16, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Jun 16, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jun 16, 2021	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

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

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2021	4	0	E
2023	19	1	G ▲
2024	1	1	G ▲
2025	12	0	F
2026	3	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)

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

Date	Type	Amount / length
Apr 10, 2024	Fine	$66,134
Apr 10, 2024	Payment Denial	8 days from May 1, 2024

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

Measure	This facility	California avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	0.00	4.31	3.95	—
Registered Nurse hours	0.00	0.61	0.69	—
Weekend total nurse staffing	0.00	3.90	3.50	—
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.00	0.51	0.48	—
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	21.7	36.7	45.8	top 10% in California; top 4% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	0.0	38.1	42.9	—

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 0.00, RN 0.00, weekend 0.00. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Santiago, Marilyn	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	10/01/2006
MMS Quality Nursing Services, INC.	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
MMS Quality Nursing Services, INC.	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	05/01/2025
Santiago, Edward	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
Santiago, Edward	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
Santiago, Edward	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
Santiago, Marilyn	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
Santiago, Marilyn	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/01/2006
Santiago, Marilyn	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	10/01/2006
Santiago-Cade, Adora Rose	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
Santiago-Cade, Adora Rose	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
Santiago-Cade, Adora Rose	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
Santiago-So, Ruby Ann	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	11/01/2019
Santiago-So, Ruby Ann	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	11/01/2020
Snipes, Tyrone	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2012
Snipes, Tyrone	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2012
Welden, Elna	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006
Welden, Elna	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2006

Questions to ask on your visit

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?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection
Elmwood Care Center	0.2 mi	Berkeley, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Kyakameena Care Center	0.4 mi	Berkeley, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Berkeley Pines Skilled Nursing Center	0.5 mi	Berkeley, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Chaparral House	1.4 mi	Berkeley, CA	★★★★★	4/5
The Rehabilitation Center of Oakland	2.0 mi	Oakland, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Piedmont Gardens Health Facility	2.3 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Oakland Healthcare & Wellness Center	2.6 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	4/5
McClure Post Acute	2.6 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Medical Hill Healthcare Center	2.6 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Lake Merritt Healthcare Center LLC	3.0 mi	Oakland, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Berkeley →

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

The Care File

Visit checklist — Ashby Care Center

2270 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 · 5108419494

Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 2/5· Fines (3y): $66,134

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Apr 10, 2024 (F-0684, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Oct 13, 2023 (F-0656, Actual harm, one-off): 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.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "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?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 555466 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)