Baywood Post Acute
238 Virginia Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 · Santa Clara County · 45 certified beds · avg 41 residents/day · certified since Jan 22, 2007
Part of chain: LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.90
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5
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.
All citations in the current public record (34)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Apr 4, 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. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. |
| Apr 4, 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jan 12, 2024 | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2022 | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2022 | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. |
| Dec 5, 2022 | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2022 | 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 stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 14).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 14 | 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)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
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) | 4.90 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 17% in California; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 40% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.37 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 18% in California; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.32 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 39% in California; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 48.1 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 18% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 77.8 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 4% in California; bottom 7% 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 4.36, RN 0.48, weekend 3.89. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morales, James | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 24% | 04/01/2025 |
| Morales, Judith | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 24% | 04/01/2025 |
| Rising Selarum LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 48% | 04/01/2025 |
| Beardsley, Mary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Beardsley, Mary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Chow, Norman | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Chow, Norman | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Forbright Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2025 |
| Links Support Services, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Links Support Services, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/13/2025 |
| Morales, Jansen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Morales, Jansen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
- "What is your approach to psychiatric medications — how do you try non-drug options first and work to reduce doses over time?"
- "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?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
- "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 | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camden Postacute Care, INC | 0.9 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Creekside Post-Acute | 1.2 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care | 1.5 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Childrens HC Org No Ca -Pediatric Hospital D/P SNF | 1.7 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Empress Care Center, LLC | 2.1 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| Plum Tree Care Center | 2.2 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Woodlands Healthcare Center | 2.3 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Childrens HC Org No Ca Saratoga Pediatric Subacute | 2.3 mi | Saratoga, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Westwood Post Acute | 2.4 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| White Blossom Care Center | 2.5 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation | 2.7 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Courtyard Care Center | 2.7 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555841.