How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
797 E Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (408) 738-4880· 99 certified beds · avg 87 residents/day · certified since May 9, 2002 · 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: GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 4.1★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 11, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.69
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: 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 32 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. F-0804
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
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
View all 32 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Aug 11, 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 |
| Aug 11, 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 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Aug 11, 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 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Aug 11, 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 |
| Aug 11, 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 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Aug 11, 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 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | 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. · F-0761 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated. · F-0807 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | 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. · F-0656 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 29, 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 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Mar 29, 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 |
| Nov 8, 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 |
| Nov 8, 2021 | 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 |
| Nov 8, 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 |
| Nov 8, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 8, 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 |
| Nov 8, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2021 | 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. · F-0761 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 15).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 15
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 15 | 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: 3.69
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.69
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.23
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) | 3.69 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 20% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.69 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 25% in California; top 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.23 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 13% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.52 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 29% in California; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 23.8 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 14% in California; top 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 7.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 4% in California; top 3% 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 4.27, RN 0.80, weekend 3.74.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.27 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: 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 Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bmo Bank National Association | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2023 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2023 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
All 6 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 Generations Healthcare — 27 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.
- English Oaks Convalescent & Rehabilitation Hospita — Modesto, CA · overall 3/5
- Friendship Manor Nursing & Rehab Center — National City, CA · overall 5/5
- Gramercy Court — Sacramento, CA · overall 4/5abuse
- Heritage Park Nursing Center — Upland, CA · overall 5/5
- Horizon Health & Subacute Center — Fresno, CA · overall 2/5
- Kearny Mesa Convalescent and Nursing Home — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
- Lakeside Special Care Center — Lakeside, CA · overall 5/5
- Lawton Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 26 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.
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "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 inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
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 24% 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 60 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sunnyvale Gardens Post Acute | 0.6 mi | Sunnyvale, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Idylwood Care Center | 2.2 mi | Sunnyvale, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Sunnyvale Post-Acute Center | 2.2 mi | Sunnyvale, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Sunny View Manor | 3.4 mi | Cupertino, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Mountain View Healthcare Center | 3.5 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Courtyard Care Center | 3.5 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Camino Ridge Post-Acute | 3.6 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness Center | 3.6 mi | Cupertino, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Los Altos Post-Acute | 3.9 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Health Care Ctr at the Forum at Rancho San Antonio | 4.0 mi | Cupertino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Win Post-Acute | 4.0 mi | Santa Clara, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Westwood Post Acute | 4.1 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
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.
- 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
- Creekside Post-Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
- 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555790.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).