361 E. Grangeville Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230 (opens Google Maps) · Kings County · (559) 582-9221· 133 certified beds · avg 115 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 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 →
Part of chain: WEST HARBOR HEALTHCARE (8 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: May 6, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. F-0804
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0627 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0644 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0677 |
| Apr 10, 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 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0732 |
| Apr 10, 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 |
| Apr 10, 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 |
| Apr 10, 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 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| Jan 2, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Apr 1, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 1, 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0808 |
| Aug 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0609 |
| Aug 8, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 8, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0912 |
| Apr 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0623 |
| Nov 3, 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 |
| Dec 6, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Dec 6, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Dec 6, 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 |
| Dec 6, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Dec 6, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 6, 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 |
| Dec 6, 2019 | E · Potential for more than 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 |
| Dec 6, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0912 |
| Dec 6, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Dec 6, 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 15).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
0 fines totaling $0, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2025 | Payment Denial | 3 days from May 3, 2025 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 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 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 3.93, RN 0.26, weekend 3.68.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.93 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Brighton Post Acute. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
All 8 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain West Harbor Healthcare — 8 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 15.7 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 | |
| Grand Oaks Care | 18.7 mi | Tulare, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Dinuba Healthcare | 19.0 mi | Dinuba, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055410.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details