How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Broadway Villa Post Acute
1250 Broadway, Sonoma, CA 95476 (opens Google Maps) · Sonoma County · (707) 938-8406· 144 certified beds · avg 137 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1974 · 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: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 10, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jul 2, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.53
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 · Jul 2, 2026 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 2, 2026 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 33 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
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
The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. F-0921
View all 33 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 2, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jul 2, 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Apr 10, 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. · F-0921 |
| Apr 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Feb 27, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Jan 14, 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 |
| Dec 24, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Sep 8, 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 |
| Apr 21, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 21, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0919 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 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 |
| Jan 23, 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. · F-0689 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Jan 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Jan 14, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility has more than 120 beds but did not hire a qualified full-time social worker as required. · from a complaint · F-0850 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Oct 23, 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 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · F-0567 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · from a complaint · F-0699 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 2).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 7 | 1 | G ▲ |
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: 4.53
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.70
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.02
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) | 4.53 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 27% in California; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 24% in California; top 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.02 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 32% in California; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 38% in California; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 31.5 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 35% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 40% in California; top 33% 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 3.99, RN 0.61, weekend 3.54.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.99 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Broadway Villa 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/30/2006 |
| Empey, Michael | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2019 |
| Empey, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2019 |
| Empey, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2019 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2001 |
| Keetch, Chad | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2011 |
| Mariano Health Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| Port, Barry | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/25/2025 |
| Serrano, Noel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2020 |
| Serrano, Noel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2020 |
| Standard Bearer Healthcare Op LP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| The Ensign Group INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| Willits, Adam | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
All 13 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Ensign Group — 342 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.
- Brookfield Healthcare Center — Downey, CA · overall 5/5
- Brookside Healthcare Center — Redlands, CA · overall 3/5
- Camarillo Healthcare Center — Camarillo, CA · overall 5/5
- Camino Healthcare — Hawthorne, CA · overall 2/5
- Carmel Mountain Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center — San Diego, CA · overall 3/5
- Channel Islands Post Acute — Santa Barbara, CA · overall 3/5
- Chatsworth Park Health Care Center — Chatsworth, CA · overall 1/5
- Claremont Care Center — Pomona, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 341 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
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 32% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 13 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 30 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sonoma Post Acute | 0.8 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Valley of the Moon Post Acute | 0.9 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| The Meadows of Napa Valley | 8.7 mi | Napa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Napa Community Health Center | 9.0 mi | Napa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Vineyard Post Acute | 9.4 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Veterans Home of California - Yountville - SNF | 9.7 mi | Yountville, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Napa Valley Care Center | 9.7 mi | Napa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Napa Post Acute | 9.8 mi | Napa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Dept of State Hospitals - Napa D/P SNF | 10.3 mi | Napa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| North Bay Post Acute | 10.4 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Hillcrest Post Acute | 11.0 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Petaluma Post-Acute Rehabilitation | 11.0 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Sonoma, CA — 18 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Cloverdale Healthcare Center — Cloverdale, CA · overall 5/5
- Healdsburg Hospital D/P SNF — Healdsburg, CA · overall 4/5
- Northvine Postacute Care — Santa Rosa, CA · overall 1/5
- Park View Post Acute — Santa Rosa, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Ridgeway Post Acute — Petaluma, CA · overall 1/5
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 055987.