How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Bethany Home Society San Joaquin County
930 West Main Street, Ripon, CA 95366 (opens Google Maps) · San Joaquin County · (209) 599-4221· 92 certified beds · avg 56 residents/day · certified since Feb 25, 1967 · 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 →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 21, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.69
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The 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
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. · from a complaint F-0757
The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint F-0842
View all 29 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 15, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 15, 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. · from a complaint · F-0757 |
| Apr 15, 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. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Sep 8, 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · from a complaint · F-0688 |
| Jul 18, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Jul 18, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Mar 21, 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 |
| Mar 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Mar 21, 2025 | 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 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Oct 24, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Oct 4, 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 |
| Oct 4, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Sep 22, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Nov 4, 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 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| May 9, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2022 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 3 | 0 | D |
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: 4.69
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.38
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.23
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) | 4.69 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 22% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.38 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 27% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.23 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 23% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.26 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 25% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 46.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 21% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 66.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 9% in California; bottom 15% 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 4.31, RN 0.35, weekend 3.88.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.31 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: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Bethany Home Society San Joaquin County. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alger, Raeann | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/25/2025 |
| Dutter, Daryl | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/31/2006 |
| Dutter, Daryl | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/31/2006 |
| Fien, Elisabeth | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/25/2025 |
| Marcus, Steve | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/14/2025 |
| Marcus, Steve | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/12/2026 |
| Miller, Jeff | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2022 |
| Miller, Jeff | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2022 |
| Mulder, William | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/30/2024 |
| Osborn, Claire | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/30/2024 |
| Scheublein, Cindy | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2015 |
| Scheublein, Cindy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2015 |
| Sharma, Vijay | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/31/2022 |
| Sharma, Vijay | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/31/2022 |
| Slager, Carol | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/29/2019 |
| Van Essen, Ronald | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/31/2023 |
| Van Groningen, Jeffrey | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/31/2023 |
| Van Till, John | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/31/2023 |
| Vander Plaats, Judith | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/30/2024 |
| Veilleux, Jeffrey | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/25/2025 |
Showing 20 of 21 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 1 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
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 is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
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 46% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 21 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 23 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vintage Faire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 5.5 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Harvest Crossing Post Acute | 6.1 mi | Manteca, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| English Oaks Convalescent & Rehabilitation Hospita | 6.3 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Guardian Care and Rehabilitation Center | 7.3 mi | Manteca, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Almond Vista Healthcare | 7.4 mi | Modesto, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Garden City Healthcare Center | 8.2 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Modesto Post Acute Center | 9.3 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Valley Skilled Nursing Center | 9.3 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Golden Modesto Care Center | 9.5 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Riverbank Post-Acute | 9.8 mi | Riverbank, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Crestwood Manor | 9.9 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| River View Post Acute | 10.7 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Joaquin, CA — 24 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Brookside Care Center — Stockton, CA · overall 1/5
- Clearwater Healthcare Center — Stockton, CA · overall 2/5
- Creekside Center — Stockton, CA · overall 2/5
- Crestwood Manor - 104 — Stockton, CA · overall 3/5
- Crystal Creek Post-Acute — Stockton, CA · overall 2/5
- Delta Oaks Post Acute — Stockton, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Fairmont Rehabilitation Hospital — Lodi, CA · overall 4/5
- Fulton Gardens Post Acute, LLC — Stockton, CA · overall 3/5
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 055662.