California ›Bakersfield

Bayshire Riverwalk Post-Acute

350 Calloway Drive, Building C, Bakersfield, CA 93312 · Kern County · 120 certified beds · avg 99 residents/day · certified since Apr 10, 2001

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.5★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$80,668
Fines, last 3 years
4.91
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 · Mar 2, 2026 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

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: Mar 3, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Dec 8, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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: Dec 9, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Dec 4, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

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: Dec 20, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (66)

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
Mar 2, 2026▲ G · Actual 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
Feb 11, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 8, 2025▲ G · Actual 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
Dec 4, 2025▲ G · Actual 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
Dec 4, 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.
Dec 4, 2025E · 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.
Dec 4, 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.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Dec 4, 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
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to share a room with their spouse or a roommate of their choosing, or moved residents to a different room without written notice beforehand. · from a complaint
Dec 4, 2025D · 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
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Dec 4, 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.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jul 29, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
May 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Jan 28, 2025D · 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
Jan 17, 2025D · 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
Nov 7, 2024F · 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.
Nov 7, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Nov 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Nov 7, 2024E · 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.
Nov 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 7, 2024E · 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.
Nov 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Nov 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Nov 7, 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.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 7, 2024D · 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.
Jun 28, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 28, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Jun 5, 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
May 24, 2024E · 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. · from a complaint
Apr 29, 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 19, 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 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Mar 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Feb 12, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Feb 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Feb 6, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 6, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Feb 6, 2024E · 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. · from a complaint
Dec 7, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 7, 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
Dec 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Nov 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Aug 16, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Dec 8, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 8, 2022E · 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.
Dec 8, 2022E · 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.
Dec 8, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Dec 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Dec 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Dec 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (17 → 13).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202280E
202360E
2024310F
2025192G ▲
202621G ▲

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)

2 fines totaling $80,668, plus 2 Medicare payment denial periods.

DateTypeAmount / length
Mar 2, 2026Fine$36,572
Dec 8, 2025Fine$44,096
Dec 8, 2025Payment Denial42 days from Dec 24, 2025
Feb 6, 2024Payment Denial35 days from May 6, 2024

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)4.914.313.95top 16% in California; top 15% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.740.610.69top 21% in California; top 32% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.473.903.50top 15% in California; top 12% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.530.510.48top 28% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)49.036.745.8bottom 16% in California; bottom 39% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)38.138.142.9bottom 48% in California; top 44% 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 4.51, RN 0.68, weekend 4.11. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Brookdale Gardens INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%02/21/2006
Baier, LucindaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE03/09/2018
Baier, LucindaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/09/2018
Bowman, KevinIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2021
Bowman, KevinIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2021
La Marre, KevinIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/22/2017
Munoz, AnnaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/15/2024
Munoz, AnnaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/05/2024
White, ChadwickIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE03/09/2018
White, ChadwickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/09/2018

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
Kern River Transitional Care6.3 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Rosewood Health Facility6.9 miBakersfield, CA★★★★☆3/5
Valley Healthcare Center8.6 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
The Orchards Post-Acute9.0 miBakersfield, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
San Joaquin Nursing Center and Rehabilitation Cent9.0 miBakersfield, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Parkview Julian Healthcare Center9.5 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Shafter Nursing Care10.4 miShafter, CA★★★☆☆3/5
The Rehabilitation Center of Bakersfield11.3 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Height Street Skilled Care11.3 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Bakersfield Post Acute13.1 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Bakersfield →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555771.