How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Baywood Post Acute
238 Virginia Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (408) 379-8114· 45 certified beds · avg 41 residents/day · certified since Jan 22, 2007 · 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 Apr 4, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.90
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: 3/5 · 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 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. F-0700
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
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
View all 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0700 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 4, 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 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0640 |
| Apr 4, 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 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0732 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Apr 4, 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 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0700 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0578 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0607 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0645 |
| Jan 12, 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 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Jan 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0695 |
| Jan 12, 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 5, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 5, 2022 | 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 |
| Dec 5, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Dec 5, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Dec 5, 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 stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 14).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 14
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 |
| 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)
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: 4.90
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: 4.37
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) | 4.90 | 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 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 4.36, RN 0.48, weekend 3.89.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.36 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Baywood 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Showing 20 of 29 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 9 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.
- 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
- Jacob Healthcare Center — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
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.
- "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?"
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 48% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 29 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 57 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 →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Santa Clara, CA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Camino Ridge Post-Acute — Mountain View, CA · overall 1/5
- Canyon Springs Post-Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 4/5
- Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Sunnyvale, CA · overall 4/5
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 555841.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).