Canyon Springs Post-Acute

180 North Jackson Avenue, San Jose, CA 95116 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (408) 259-8700· 199 certified beds · avg 189 residents/day · certified since Dec 30, 1994 · 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: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected May 9, 2025

Serious findings on record

most recent Jun 14, 2021

Fines, last 3 years

3.51

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: 4/5 · 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 · Jun 14, 2021 · F-0622

The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out.

Why it matters: Improper discharge or transfer can suddenly uproot a resident from their home and care without warning or recourse.

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: Jul 26, 2021 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 53 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

Jul 22, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal 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
Jun 24, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal 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
May 9, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
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

View all 53 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 22, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal 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
Jun 24, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal 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
May 9, 2025	F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread	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
May 9, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605
May 9, 2025	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
May 9, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
May 9, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
May 9, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
May 9, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · F-0761
May 9, 2025	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
May 9, 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. · F-0550
May 9, 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. · F-0656
May 9, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0693
May 9, 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
May 9, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0700
May 9, 2025	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
May 9, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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. · F-0919
Apr 30, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · from a complaint · F-0773
Jan 6, 2025	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
Jun 26, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Jun 26, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal 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
Jun 26, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · from a complaint · F-0756
Jun 26, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · from a complaint · F-0770
Jun 26, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · from a complaint · F-0773
Feb 15, 2024	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
Feb 15, 2024	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
Feb 15, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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. · F-0645
Feb 15, 2024	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
Nov 1, 2023	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. · from a complaint · F-0658
Jun 14, 2021	▲ G · Actual harm, isolated	The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · F-0622
Jun 14, 2021	F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread	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
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · F-0655
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Jun 14, 2021	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
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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. · F-0693
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · F-0761
Jun 14, 2021	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 14, 2021	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. · F-0550
Jun 14, 2021	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0554
Jun 14, 2021	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
Jun 14, 2021	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
Jun 14, 2021	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
Jun 14, 2021	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Jun 14, 2021	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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. · F-0690
Jun 14, 2021	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Jun 14, 2021	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0745
Jun 14, 2021	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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. · F-0758
Jun 14, 2021	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 15).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2021

2023

2024

2025

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2021	24	1	G ▲
2023	1	0	D
2024	9	0	D
2025	19	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)

How to file a complaint about care →

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

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average

Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)

3.51

4.31

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

0.42

0.61

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

3.36

3.90

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)	3.51	4.31	3.95	bottom 10% in California; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.42	0.61	0.69	bottom 38% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.36	3.90	3.50	bottom 19% in California; top 50% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.35	0.51	0.48	bottom 45% in California; bottom 41% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	31.6	36.7	45.8	top 35% in California; top 17% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	15.8	38.1	42.9	top 13% in California; top 9% 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 3.69, RN 0.44, weekend 3.52.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.69 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 5/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Canyon Springs 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 - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	100%	11/02/2015
Hudson River Opco LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	10/01/2019
Apt, Frederick	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Bennett, John	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	12/07/2023
Bennett, John	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/07/2023
Hancock, Mark	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Jergensen, Joshua	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Mitchell, John	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Vetsa, Surekha	Individual	Contracted Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	03/01/2018

All 9 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 Pacs Group — 274 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.

Central Gardens Post Acute — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
Citrus Heights Post Acute — Citrus Heights, CA · overall 4/5
City View Post Acute — San Francisco, CA · overall 2/5
Concord Post Acute — Concord, CA · overall 2/5abuse
Copper Ridge Care Center — Redding, CA · overall 5/5
Costa Del Sol Healthcare — Los Angeles, CA · overall 2/5
Cottonwood Canyon Healthcare Center — El Cajon, CA · overall 3/5
Country Hills Post Acute — El Cajon, CA · overall 1/5

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 273 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

"Under what circumstances would you discharge or transfer a resident, and what notice and appeal rights would we have?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
"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?"

Also worth asking anywhere

"Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
"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?"
"Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 57 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection
Vista Manor Nursing Center	0.2 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Inspire Behavioral Health	1.5 mi	San Jose, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
San Jose Healthcare & Wellness Center	2.1 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
The Ridge Post Acute	2.2 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Mission de la Casa	3.2 mi	San Jose, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
The Redwoods Post-Acute	5.3 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Milpitas Care Center	5.4 mi	Milpitas, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose	5.5 mi	San Jose, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF	5.5 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★★	5/5
White Blossom Care Center	5.7 mi	San Jose, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
Santa Clara Post Acute	5.8 mi	Santa Clara, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
The Win Post-Acute	5.8 mi	Santa Clara, CA	★★★★★	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Santa Clara, CA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Sunnyvale, CA · overall 4/5
Childrens HC Org No Ca -Pediatric Hospital D/P SNF — Campbell, CA · overall 5/5
Childrens HC Org No Ca Saratoga Pediatric Subacute — Saratoga, CA · overall 5/5
Courtyard Care Center — San Jose, CA · overall 3/5
Creekside Post-Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness Center — Cupertino, CA · overall 3/5
Empress Care Center, LLC — San Jose, CA · overall 4/5
Gilroy Healthcare Center — Gilroy, CA · overall 2/5

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in San Jose →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056082.