California ›San Dimas

Bayshire San Dimas Post-Acute

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

1740 S San Dimas Ave, San Dimas, CA 91773 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (909) 394-0304· 45 certified beds · avg 39 residents/day · certified since May 5, 1999 · Medicare only — not Medicaid certified

Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: BAYSHIRE SENIOR COMMUNITIES (7 facilities, chain avg rating 3.7★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 9, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Nov 6, 2024
$85,083
Fines, last 3 years
4.07
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: ★★★☆☆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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 6, 2024 · 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): 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: Nov 26, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 29, 2024 · F-0686

The 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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

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: Feb 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 51 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint F-0580

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

    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

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

    The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. F-0684

View all 51 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
Jul 2, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Apr 9, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 9, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Apr 9, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0686
Apr 9, 2026E · 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
Apr 9, 2026E · 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
Apr 9, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552
Apr 9, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Dec 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · from a complaint · F-0552
Dec 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Dec 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint · F-0806
Dec 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint · F-0698
Feb 9, 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
Feb 9, 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
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0550
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · F-0678
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0725
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Feb 9, 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. · F-0880
Feb 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908
Nov 6, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 6, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jul 18, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint · F-0660
Jul 18, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedWhen a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · from a complaint · F-0661
Jul 18, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint · F-0745
Jul 18, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Jun 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly. · from a complaint · F-0624
Jan 29, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0686
Jan 29, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jan 29, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jan 29, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Jan 29, 2024E · 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
Jan 29, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887
Jan 29, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · F-0940
Jan 29, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Jan 29, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693
Jan 29, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Jan 29, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760
Jan 29, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 29, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867
Jan 29, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921
Oct 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 7).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 22
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 20
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202310D
2024222G ▲
2025200E
202680E

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 →

8 fines totaling $85,083.

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
Nov 6, 2024Fine$12,048
Feb 20, 2024Fine$4,938
Feb 12, 2024Fine$4,938
Jan 29, 2024Fine$25,058
Jan 22, 2024Fine$14,814
Jan 8, 2024Fine$4,938
Jan 2, 2024Fine$4,587
Dec 11, 2023Fine$13,762

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: 4.07
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.54
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.90
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)4.074.313.95bottom 47% in California; top 37% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.540.610.69top 41% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.903.903.50top 39% in California; top 26% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.390.510.48top 47% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)32.736.745.8top 39% in California; top 19% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)50.038.142.9bottom 29% in California; bottom 39% 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 4.42, RN 0.58, weekend 4.23.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.42 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 · 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 Bayshire San Dimas 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bayshire Continuing Care LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2024
Golden State Care Holdings LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2024
Bayshire LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2024
Coleman, ChadIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2023
Hirsch, RickIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2025
Kirby, ScottIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2024
Kirby, ScottIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2024
Kirby, ScottIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2024
Parrott, JasonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/30/2023
Peterson, TannerIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/13/2025
Peterson, TannerIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/13/2025
Villanueva, RickyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/21/2025

All 12 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Bayshire Senior Communities — 7 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.

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.

  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"

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 33% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 138 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Citrus Heights Health Center1.8 miCovina, CA★★★★★4/5
Casa Bonita Convalescent Hospital2.3 miSan Dimas, CA★★★★☆4/5
Arbor Glen Care Center2.6 miGlendora, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Woods Health Services2.9 miLa Verne, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Laurel Park Behavioral Health Center3.0 miPomona, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Gladstone Sub-Acute and Rehab Center3.4 miGlendora, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Glendora Grand, INC3.9 miGlendora, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Inland Valley Care and Rehabilitation Center4.0 miPomona, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Park Avenue Healthcare & Wellness Center4.0 miPomona, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Landmark Medical Center4.0 miPomona, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Covina Rehabilitation Center4.0 miCovina, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Mesa Glen Care Center4.0 miGlendora, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Los Angeles, CA — 369 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 San Dimas →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555737.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

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