California ›Selma

Bethel Lutheran Home

2280 Dockery Avenue, Selma, CA 93662 · Fresno County · 59 certified beds · avg 57 residents/day · certified since Aug 9, 2021

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.17
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 (41)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Dec 5, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Dec 5, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 5, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Dec 5, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Aug 22, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Aug 22, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Nov 15, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Nov 15, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · from a complaint
Nov 15, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not educate its staff on residents' rights and the facility's responsibilities toward residents. Staff can only respect rights they've been taught about. · from a complaint
Oct 28, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 28, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Oct 28, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 28, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 28, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Oct 28, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Oct 28, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 28, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Oct 28, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 28, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Oct 28, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Oct 28, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 28, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 1, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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 (13 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023130E
2024160F
2025120F

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)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.174.313.95top 46% in California; top 33% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.270.610.69bottom 7% in California; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.853.903.50top 42% in California; top 28% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.230.510.48bottom 17% in California; bottom 17% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)52.536.745.8bottom 10% in California; bottom 31% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)80.038.142.9bottom 4% in California; bottom 6% 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 3.81, RN 0.24, weekend 3.51. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Benner, PhilipIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2015
Hertzog, BonnyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Jacobsen, LaurelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2015
Patteson, ShikhaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/21/2021
Safreno, DanielIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/19/2016
Schauland, DonnaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2016
Steck, EdwardIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2017
Wadewitz, BettyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/20/2017

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Rolling Hills Care Center0.7 miSelma, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Kingsburg Center3.6 miKingsburg, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Fowler Care Center5.2 miFowler, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Vineyards at Fowler5.7 miFowler, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Palm Village Retirement Comm.8.4 miReedley, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Manning Gardens Care Center, INC8.7 miFresno, CA★★★★★4/5
Vineyard Care Center9.0 miReedley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Sierra View Homes9.1 miReedley, CA★★☆☆☆3/5
Cornerstone Care Center9.6 miSanger, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Grace Healthcare Center11.1 miFresno, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Dinuba Healthcare11.9 miDinuba, CA★★★★☆4/5
California Home for the Aged12.4 miFresno, CA★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Selma →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555924.