How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Beach Creek Post-Acute
645 South Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804 (opens Google Maps) · Orange County · (714) 821-1993· 138 certified beds · avg 133 residents/day · certified since Oct 3, 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 Jan 26, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.32
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 60 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
View all 60 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 26, 2026 | 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 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | 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 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0686 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | 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. · F-0689 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated. · F-0807 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | 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. · F-0842 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 26, 2026 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The 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 26, 2026 | B · Potential for 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 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | B · Potential for 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 26, 2026 | B · Potential for 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 26, 2026 | B · Potential for 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 |
| Dec 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0610 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 9, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0695 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · from a complaint · F-0814 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · F-0838 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | B · Potential for 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 |
| Jan 23, 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. · from a complaint · F-0695 |
| Aug 24, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0554 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Mar 7, 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. · F-0689 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0881 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames. · F-0909 |
| Mar 7, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss. · F-0574 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 24).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 22
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 25
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 22 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 12 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 25 | 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: 4.32
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.35
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.83
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) | 4.32 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 37% in California; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.35 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 21% in California; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.83 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 43% in California; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 40% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 44% in California; top 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 38.5 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 48% in California; top 44% 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 3.99, RN 0.33, weekend 3.54.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.99 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: 5/5 · 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 Beach Creek 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beardsley, Mary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Beardsley, Mary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Forbright Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Ireifej, Yousef | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Ireifej, Yousef | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/26/2025 |
| Links Support Services, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Links Support Services, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/26/2025 |
| Pulido, Walker | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Pulido, Walker | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Rodriguez, Curtis | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Rodriguez, Curtis | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Rodriguez, Curtis | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
Showing 20 of 25 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 5 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.
- 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
- Lodi Creek Post Acute — Lodi, CA · overall 3/5abuse
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.
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
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 38% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 25 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 202 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anaheim Healthcare Center, LLC | 0.1 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Anaheim Crest Nursing Center | 0.6 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| West Anaheim Medical Center D/P SNF | 0.6 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Buena Park Nursing Center | 1.2 mi | Buena Park, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Anaheim Terrace Care Center | 1.2 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Park Anaheim Healthcare Center | 1.2 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Anaheim Point | 1.2 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Healthcare Center of Orange County | 1.5 mi | Buena Park, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Rowntree Gardens | 2.7 mi | Stanton, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sun Mar Nursing Center | 2.9 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Buena Vista Care Center | 3.0 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Coventry Court Health Center | 3.1 mi | Anaheim, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Orange, CA — 72 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Beachside Nursing Center — Huntington Beach, CA · overall 4/5
- Bonita Hills Post Acute — La Habra, CA · overall 3/5
- Capistrano Beach Care Center — Dana Point, CA · overall 1/5
- Chapman Care Center — Garden Grove, CA · overall 4/5
- Chapman Global Medical Center D/P SNF — Orange, CA · overall 3/5
- Citrus Post-Acute — Santa Ana, CA · overall 2/5
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 555388.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).