How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Avondale Villa Post-Acute
788 Holmes Street, Livermore, CA 94550 (opens Google Maps) · Alameda County · (925) 447-2280· 37 certified beds · avg 34 residents/day · certified since Jul 26, 1989 · 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: LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 16, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.03
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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 36 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
View all 36 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2026 | 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 16, 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 |
| May 16, 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | 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. · F-0755 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| May 16, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0912 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · F-0805 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0655 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| Mar 1, 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. · F-0692 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0912 |
| Dec 21, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0684 |
| Mar 25, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 25, 2022 | 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 25, 2022 | 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. · F-0755 |
| Mar 25, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 25, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0912 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (17 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 17 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
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: 4.03
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.33
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.62
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) | 4.03 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 44% in California; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.33 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 16% in California; bottom 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.62 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 40% in California; top 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.34 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 43% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 36.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 50% in California; top 27% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 60.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 16% in California; bottom 22% 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 4.32, RN 0.35, weekend 3.88.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.32 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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 Avondale Villa Post-Acute. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson, Chad | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Anderson, Chad | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Beardsley, Mary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Beardsley, Mary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Deguzman, Myrna | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Deguzman, Myrna | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Eide Bailly LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Forbright Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Freanel & Sons Som LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Freanel & Sons Som LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Kaur, Karamjit | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Kaur, Karamjit | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2020 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/11/2025 |
Showing 20 of 35 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 15 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 Links Healthcare Group — 32 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.
- Baywood Post Acute — Campbell, CA · overall 3/5
- Beach Creek Post-Acute — Anaheim, CA · overall 3/5
- Canyon Creek Post-Acute — Castro Valley, CA · overall 4/5
- Clearwater Healthcare Center — Stockton, CA · overall 2/5
- Community Care Center — La Mesa, CA · overall 4/5
- Creekside Post-Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
- Crystal Creek Post-Acute — Stockton, CA · overall 2/5
- Encinitas Post-Acute — Encinitas, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 31 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.
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "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?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
- "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 are your rules for bringing in my family member's favorite foods, and how are they stored?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 36% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 35 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stratford Villa Post-Acute | 0.0 mi | Livermore, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Vineyards Healthcare Center | 0.3 mi | Livermore, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Creekview Skilled Nursing | 4.1 mi | Pleasanton, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Pleasanton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 5.0 mi | Pleasanton, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| The Reutlinger Community | 10.9 mi | Danville, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Niles Canyon Post Acute | 12.6 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Mission Valley Post Acute | 13.5 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| We Care Skilled Nursing - Fremont | 13.5 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Country Drive Post Acute | 13.5 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Masonic Home | 13.5 mi | Union City, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Crestwood Treatment Center | 13.6 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Crestwood Manor - Fremont | 14.4 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
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.
- Bancroft Healthcare Center — San Leandro, CA · overall 3/5
- Bay Area Healthcare Center — Oakland, CA · overall 5/5
- Bay Marina Post Acute — Oakland, CA · overall 3/5
- Bay View Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC — Alameda, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Baywood Court Health Center — Castro Valley, CA · overall 5/5
- Bellaken Skilled Nursing Center — Oakland, CA · overall 5/5
- Berkeley Pines Skilled Nursing Center — Berkeley, CA · overall 2/5
- Bethesda Home — Hayward, 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 555399.