California ›Campbell

Camden Postacute Care, INC

1331 Camden Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 · Santa Clara County · 60 certified beds · avg 57 residents/day · certified since Nov 17, 2006

Part of chain: RMG CAPITAL PARTNERS (9 facilities, chain avg rating 2.6★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.10
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: 4/5

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.

All citations in the current public record (39)

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

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 16, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
May 16, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
May 16, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
May 16, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint
May 16, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016.
May 16, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
May 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Aug 15, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint
Jul 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
May 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 1, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Feb 1, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016.
Jan 26, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
May 21, 2021F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
May 21, 2021F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 21, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 21, 2021B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016.
May 21, 2021B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 17).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2021130F
202460D
2025200F

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)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.104.313.95bottom 49% in California; top 36% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.260.610.69bottom 6% in California; bottom 6% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.003.903.50top 34% in California; top 23% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.210.510.48bottom 12% in California; bottom 13% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)31.636.745.8top 35% in California; top 17% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)33.338.142.9top 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 3.84, RN 0.25, weekend 3.75. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bansal, JaganIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%04/17/2023
Bansal, ManeeshIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%04/17/2023
RMG Capital Partners, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2019
Bansal, JaganIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2014
Bansal, ManeeshIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2014
Bansal, ManeeshIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2014
Reliant Management Group, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2014

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Childrens HC Org No Ca -Pediatric Hospital D/P SNF0.9 miCampbell, CA★★★★★5/5
Baywood Post Acute0.9 miCampbell, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Plum Tree Care Center1.3 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★4/5
Woodlands Healthcare Center1.4 miLos Gatos, CA★★★★★5/5
Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation1.9 miLos Gatos, CA★★★★★4/5
Creekside Post-Acute2.1 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★4/5
A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care2.1 miSan Jose, CA★★★★☆3/5
Almaden Health and Rehabilitation Center2.3 miSan Jose, CA★★★★☆3/5
Empress Care Center, LLC2.3 miSan Jose, CA★★★★☆2/5
The Terraces of Los Gatos2.6 miLos Gatos, CA★★★★★5/5
Childrens HC Org No Ca Saratoga Pediatric Subacute2.8 miSaratoga, CA★★★★★4/5
Lincoln Glen Skilled Nursing2.8 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Campbell →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555838.