Brighton Post Acute

Name: Brighton Post Acute
Address: 361 E. GRANGEVILLE BLVD, Hanford, CA, 93230, US
Telephone: 5595829221

361 E. Grangeville Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230 · Kings County · 133 certified beds · avg 115 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967

Part of chain: WEST HARBOR HEALTHCARE (8 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.68

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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Apr 1, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: May 6, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (35)

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

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Jun 22, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Apr 10, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Apr 10, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Jan 2, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Apr 1, 2025	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	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
Apr 1, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Nov 1, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Aug 8, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Aug 8, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Aug 8, 2024	B · Minimal risk, repeated	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.
Apr 25, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Nov 3, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Dec 6, 2019	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Dec 6, 2019	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Dec 6, 2019	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Dec 6, 2019	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Dec 6, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 6, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Dec 6, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 6, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Dec 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 15).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2019	10	0	F
2023	1	0	D
2024	5	0	D
2025	2	1	G ▲
2026	17	0	F

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)

0 fines totaling $0, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Apr 1, 2025	Payment Denial	3 days from May 3, 2025

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

Measure	This facility	California avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	3.68	4.31	3.95	bottom 19% in California; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.24	0.61	0.69	bottom 4% in California; bottom 5% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.44	3.90	3.50	bottom 25% in California; top 45% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.19	0.51	0.48	bottom 7% in California; bottom 10% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	44.4	36.7	45.8	bottom 27% in California; top 49% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	0.0	38.1	42.9	top 1% in California; top 1% 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 3.93, RN 0.26, weekend 3.68. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Galbasini, Kevin	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	40%	05/10/2022
Gill, Daniel	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	40%	05/10/2022
Rosenhan, Cameron	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	20%	05/10/2022
West Harbor Healthcare LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	05/10/2022
Galbasini, Kevin	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	05/10/2022
Gill, Daniel	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	05/10/2022
Gill, Daniel	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	05/10/2022
Rosenhan, Cameron	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	05/10/2022

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?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
"Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
"Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection
Hanford Post Acute	1.5 mi	Hanford, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Kings Healthcare & Wellness Center LP	2.2 mi	Hanford, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Kingsburg Center	13.4 mi	Kingsburg, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Bethel Lutheran Home	15.6 mi	Selma, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Rolling Hills Care Center	16.0 mi	Selma, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Linwood Meadows Care Center	16.8 mi	Visalia, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Westgate Gardens Care Center	16.8 mi	Visalia, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Sequoia Vista	17.3 mi	Visalia, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Tulare Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP	18.7 mi	Tulare, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Orchards at Tulare	18.7 mi	Tulare, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Hanford →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055410.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Brighton Post Acute

361 E. Grangeville Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230 · 5595829221

Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 3/5· Fines (3y): $0

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Apr 1, 2025 (F-0689, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
☐ "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
☐ "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
☐ "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
☐ "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 055410 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)