How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Ceres Postacute Care
1711 Richland Avenue, Ceres, CA 95307 (opens Google Maps) · Stanislaus County · (209) 537-4581· 46 certified beds · avg 44 residents/day · certified since Oct 1, 1977 · 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: RMG CAPITAL PARTNERS (9 facilities, chain avg rating 2.6★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 16, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 4, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.19
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: 3/5 · 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 · Apr 4, 2025 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 4, 2025 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.
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: Apr 22, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 4, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 4, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
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: Apr 14, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 37 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The 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. · from a complaint F-0688
The facility did not follow the rules about disclosing who owns it, or did not tell the state agency about changes in ownership or key administrative staff. · from a complaint F-0844
The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. F-0577
View all 37 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 28, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0688 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not follow the rules about disclosing who owns it, or did not tell the state agency about changes in ownership or key administrative staff. · from a complaint · F-0844 |
| May 16, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| May 16, 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 16, 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 |
| May 16, 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 |
| May 16, 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 16, 2025 | 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 |
| May 16, 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | 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. · F-0689 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| May 16, 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 |
| May 16, 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 |
| May 16, 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 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 23, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| May 23, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| May 23, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| May 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| May 23, 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 |
| May 23, 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 |
| May 23, 2024 | 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 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 7, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · F-0838 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | 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 7, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | 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 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | 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. · F-0607 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | 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 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | 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 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's bedrooms did not give residents visual privacy — such as curtains or dividers — when privacy is needed. · F-0914 |
| Jun 7, 2019 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 13 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 15 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
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: 4.19
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.20
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.00
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) | 4.19 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 45% in California; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.20 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 1% in California; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.00 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 33% in California; top 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.19 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 9% in California; bottom 11% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 34.1 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 43% in California; top 22% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 3.88, RN 0.19, weekend 3.71.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.88 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · 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 Ceres Postacute Care. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bansal, Jagan | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 50% | 04/17/2023 |
| Bansal, Maneesh | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 50% | 04/17/2023 |
| RMG Capital Partners, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/01/2019 |
| Bansal, Jagan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/30/2015 |
| Bansal, Maneesh | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/30/2015 |
| Bansal, Maneesh | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/30/2015 |
| Bansal, Maneesh | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/30/2015 |
| Reliant Management Group, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2015 |
All 8 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 RMG Capital Partners — 9 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.
- Fresno Postacute Care — Fresno, CA · overall 3/5
- Main West Postacute Care — Turlock, CA · overall 3/5
- North Starr Postacute Care — Turlock, CA · overall 4/5
- Northgate Postacute Care — San Rafael, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Northvine Postacute Care — Santa Rosa, CA · overall 1/5
- Riverside Postacute Care — Riverside, CA · overall —/5abuseSFF
- California Post-Acute Care — Lynwood, CA · overall 1/5abuseSFF
- Camden Postacute Care, INC — Campbell, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "Who owns this facility, and has ownership or top management changed recently?"
- "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
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 34% 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 18 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| River View Post Acute | 3.2 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Valley Skilled Nursing Center | 4.2 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Modesto Post Acute Center | 4.2 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Golden Modesto Care Center | 4.6 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Crestwood Manor | 4.7 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Garden City Healthcare Center | 4.9 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Almond Vista Healthcare | 5.5 mi | Modesto, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| English Oaks Convalescent & Rehabilitation Hospita | 6.6 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Vintage Faire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 7.4 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Riverbank Post-Acute | 9.2 mi | Riverbank, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Turlock Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 9.4 mi | Turlock, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Covenant Village Care Center | 9.5 mi | Turlock, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Stanislaus, CA — 17 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Main West Postacute Care — Turlock, CA · overall 3/5
- North Starr Postacute Care — Turlock, CA · overall 4/5
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 055935.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).