How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Casa Coloma Health Care Center
10410 Coloma Rd, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 (opens Google Maps) · Sacramento County · (916) 363-4843· 138 certified beds · avg 132 residents/day · certified since Nov 19, 1975 · 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: BVHC, LLC (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 24, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.65
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 47 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. F-0607
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
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
View all 47 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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. · F-0880 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0578 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 24, 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 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 24, 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. · F-0697 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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. · F-0808 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough power supply for lighting at all entrances and exits, or for fire detection, alarm systems, and extinguishers. · F-0906 |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 31, 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 |
| Jan 31, 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 |
| Jan 31, 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 |
| Jan 31, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 31, 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. · F-0880 |
| Jan 31, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Jan 31, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 31, 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 31, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Jan 31, 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 |
| Jan 31, 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 31, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 31, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · F-0825 |
| Jan 31, 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 |
| Jan 31, 2025 | 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 |
| Oct 30, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 30, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Jun 18, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Mar 6, 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 |
| Mar 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Feb 8, 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 8, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 8, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 3, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Feb 2, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| Sep 30, 2023 | 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 |
| Sep 1, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Aug 21, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 18).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 18
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 15 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 18 | 0 | E |
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: 4.65
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.59
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.17
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) | 4.65 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 23% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 34% in California; top 50% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.17 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 24% in California; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 30% in California; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 22.2 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 12% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 20.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 19% in California; top 13% 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 4.18, RN 0.53, weekend 3.75.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.18 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Casa Coloma Health Care Center. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boehrer, Bryan | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2020 |
| Abenojar, Teresita | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/17/2023 |
| Abenojar, Teresita | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/17/2023 |
| Calabazaron, Redentor | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/06/2024 |
| Calabazaron, Redentor | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/06/2024 |
| Castaneda, Debbie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/14/2021 |
| Castaneda, Debbie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/14/2021 |
| Chinthakindi, Ravi | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/30/2023 |
| Chinthakindi, Ravi | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/30/2023 |
| Jones, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2021 |
| Jones, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2021 |
| Kazlou, Dzmitry | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Kazlou, Dzmitry | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Lata-Gokul, Jane | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/28/2023 |
| Lata-Gokul, Jane | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/28/2023 |
| Martin, Richard | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2020 |
| Martin, Richard | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2020 |
| Thapa, Nischal | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/06/2024 |
| Thapa, Nischal | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/06/2024 |
| Wilson, Tanner | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/03/2022 |
Showing 20 of 21 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 1 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain BVHC, LLC — 12 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.
- Double Tree Post Acute Care Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Forest Hill Manor Health Center — Pacific Grove, CA · overall 4/5
- Haven Post Acute — San Bernardino, CA · overall 4/5
- Heartwood Avenue Healthcare — Vallejo, CA · overall 3/5
- Katherine Healthcare — Salinas, CA · overall 2/5
- Oceanview Post Acute — Pacific Grove, CA · overall 5/5
- River Bend Nursing Center — West Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
- Riverside Village Healthcare Center — Riverside, CA · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 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.
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "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?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
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 22% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 21 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 40 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| River City Post Acute | 1.8 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| River Pointe Post-Acute | 1.8 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Mountain Manor Senior Residence | 1.9 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| American River Center | 3.4 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Whitney Oaks Care Center | 3.4 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Eskaton Village Care Center | 3.8 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Mission Carmichael Healthcare Center | 4.0 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Arden Park Post Acute | 4.3 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| College Oak Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 4.5 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Fair Oaks Healthcare Center | 4.6 mi | Fair Oaks, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Manzanita Healthcare Center | 4.8 mi | Carmichael, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Citrus Heights Post Acute | 4.9 mi | Citrus Heights, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Sacramento, CA — 37 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Cedarwood Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
- City Creek Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 5/5
- Double Tree Post Acute Care Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Elk Grove Post Acute — Elk Grove, CA · overall 3/5abuse
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 056495.