Bridgewood Post Acute

5901 Lemon Hill Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95824 (opens Google Maps) · Sacramento County · (916) 383-2741· 49 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Nov 1, 1969 · 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 →

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

What the abuse flag means →

Part of chain: SPYGLASS HEALTHCARE (9 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

2/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected Jun 5, 2025

Serious findings on record

most recent Jan 23, 2025

Fines, last 3 years

4.30

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 23, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Jan 28, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 53 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

Jan 28, 2026D · 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
Dec 30, 2025D · 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
Jul 24, 2025D · 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

View all 53 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
Jan 28, 2026	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
Dec 30, 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
Jul 24, 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
Jun 5, 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
Jun 5, 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
Jun 5, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802
Jun 5, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 5, 2025	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
Jun 5, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921
Jun 5, 2025	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
Jun 5, 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
Jun 5, 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
Apr 30, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0755
Apr 30, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656
Jan 23, 2025	▲ G · Actual 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
Oct 8, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656
Sep 3, 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
Jul 11, 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
Jul 11, 2024	E · Potential for more than 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
Jul 11, 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
Jul 11, 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
Jul 11, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jul 11, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jul 11, 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
Jul 11, 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
Jul 11, 2024	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
Jul 11, 2024	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
Jul 11, 2024	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
Jul 11, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Jul 11, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760
Jul 11, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Jul 11, 2024	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
Jun 12, 2024	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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Apr 11, 2024	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
Jun 29, 2023	F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread	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
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Jun 29, 2023	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
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676
Jun 29, 2023	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
Jun 29, 2023	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
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 29, 2023	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
Jun 29, 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
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not have a compliance and ethics program — an internal system designed to prevent and catch violations of the law and ethical standards. · F-0895
Jun 29, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919
Jun 29, 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. · F-0658
Jun 29, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Jun 29, 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
Jun 29, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (15 → 9).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2023

2024

2025

2026

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2023	19	0	F
2024	19	0	E
2025	14	1	G ▲
2026	1	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)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average

Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)

4.30

4.31

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

0.42

0.61

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

3.91

3.90

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)	4.30	4.31	3.95	top 38% in California; top 29% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.42	0.61	0.69	bottom 39% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.91	3.90	3.50	top 39% in California; top 26% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.34	0.51	0.48	bottom 43% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	29.6	36.7	45.8	top 28% in California; top 14% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	50.0	38.1	42.9	bottom 29% in California; bottom 39% 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 4.63, RN 0.46, weekend 4.22.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.63 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: 5/5 · 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 Bridgewood 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 - Individual

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Amm Trust	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	25%	06/01/2023
Gastwirth, Joshua	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	25%	06/01/2023
McCormack, Ryan	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	20%	06/01/2023
O'Shea, Brady	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	5%	06/01/2023
Spyglass Healthcare LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	50%	06/01/2023
Banuelos-Yera, Miguel	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	03/11/2024
Boyes, Konstanty	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/17/2024
Brandi, Robert	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2023
Gastwirth, Joshua	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2023
Kim, Sue	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/09/2024
Kreshchuk, Igor	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	05/29/2024
McCormack, Brennan	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	03/06/2023
McCormack, Brennan	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	03/06/2023
McCormack, Ryan	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2023
Oakwood Health LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	03/01/2022
Parham, Renee	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	03/18/2024
Pickett, Katiya	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/30/2024
Singh, Harminder	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	02/19/2024
Smith, Gregory	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	11/01/2023
Smith, Gregory	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	11/01/2023

Showing 20 of 23 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 3 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 Spyglass Healthcare — 9 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.

Capital Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 2/5abuse
Cedarwood Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
Eden Healthcare Center — Hayward, CA · overall 2/5abuse
Golden Harbor Healthcare Center — Hayward, CA · overall 2/5
Morgan Hill Healthcare Center — Morgan Hill, CA · overall 4/5
Mountain View Healthcare Center — Mountain View, CA · overall 3/5
Pacific Hills Post Acute — Morgan Hill, CA · overall 4/5
The Win Post-Acute — Santa Clara, CA · overall 5/5

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

"Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"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?"
"How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
"Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"

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 30% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
"The ownership record on file lists 23 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 43 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
City Creek Post Acute	1.7 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Capital Post Acute	2.4 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
Double Tree Post Acute Care Center	2.9 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
University Post-Acute Rehab	3.1 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Saylor Lane Healthcare Center	3.7 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Bruceville Terrace - D/P SNF of Methodist Hospital	3.9 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
McKinley Park Care Center	4.1 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute	4.2 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	4.4 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Sherwood Healthcare Center	4.4 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Cedarwood Post Acute	4.5 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Woodside Healthcare Center	4.8 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Sacramento, CA — 37 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Casa Coloma Health Care Center — Rancho Cordova, CA · overall 2/5
Citrus Heights Post Acute — Citrus Heights, CA · overall 4/5
College Oak Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Sacramento →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055956.