California Home for the Aged

Name: California Home for the Aged
Address: 6720 E. KINGS CANYON, Fresno, CA, 93727, US
Telephone: 5592518414

6720 E. Kings Canyon, Fresno, CA 93727 · Fresno County · 120 certified beds · avg 99 residents/day · certified since May 23, 1969

5/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

4.61

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

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 · Aug 19, 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: Sep 10, 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
Aug 19, 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
Mar 20, 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.
Sep 4, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Mar 28, 2024	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.
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Mar 28, 2024	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.
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Mar 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
Mar 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Mar 28, 2024	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.
Mar 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Mar 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Mar 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Mar 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Apr 22, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Apr 22, 2022	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 22, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 22, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Apr 22, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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 22, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 22, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time.
Apr 22, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 22, 2022	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 22, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Apr 22, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Apr 22, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 22, 2022	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.
Apr 22, 2022	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 22, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (17 → 1).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2022	15	0	F
2024	18	0	E
2025	2	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)

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

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)	4.61	4.31	3.95	top 24% in California; top 20% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.77	0.61	0.69	top 18% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.37	3.90	3.50	top 18% in California; top 14% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.60	0.51	0.48	top 22% in California; top 23% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	33.9	36.7	45.8	top 43% in California; top 22% 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, 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 4.24, RN 0.71, weekend 4.02. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Andersen, Terry	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	05/29/2019
Andersen, Terry	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	05/29/2019
Bacopulos, Dennis	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2023
Bacopulos, Dennis	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2023
Bacopulos, Dennis	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2023
Bagdasarian, Mitch	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2022
Bagdasarian, Mitch	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2022
Bagdasarian, Mitch	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2022
Braa, Mary	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2022
Braa, Mary	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2022
Braa, Mary	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2022
Buwalda, Lori	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/14/2025
Buwalda, Lori	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/14/2025
Bznouni, Vahagn	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2021
Bznouni, Vahagn	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2021
Der Simonian, Varoujan	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2021
Der Simonian, Varoujan	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2021
Der Simonian, Varoujan	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2021
Gonzales, Melanie	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/23/2025
Gonzales, Melanie	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	01/23/2025

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?"
"Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
"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?"
"Can I see a sample menu, and how do you handle special diets like low-sodium or diabetic meals?"
"Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
"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
Pacific Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	2.8 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Evergreen Care Center	2.8 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Orchard Post Acute	3.4 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Stonehaven Senior Living	3.4 mi	Fresno, CA		—/5
Grace Healthcare Center	4.0 mi	Fresno, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Sierra Vista Healthcare	4.5 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Morning Star Post Acute	5.9 mi	Clovis, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Cornerstone Care Center	6.0 mi	Sanger, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Oakwood Gardens Care Center	6.3 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Covenant Post Acute	6.3 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Keystone Post-Acute	6.4 mi	Fresno, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Healthcare Centre of Fresno	6.7 mi	Fresno, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Fresno →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055955.

The Care File

Visit checklist — California Home for the Aged

6720 E. Kings Canyon, Fresno, CA 93727 · 5592518414

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

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Aug 19, 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?"
☐ "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
☐ "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?"
☐ "Can I see a sample menu, and how do you handle special diets like low-sodium or diabetic meals?"
☐ "Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
☐ "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 055955 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)