CaliforniaChowchilla

Chowchilla Memorial Healthcare District

1104 Ventura Ave., Chowchilla, CA 93610 · Madera County · 29 certified beds · avg 29 residents/day · certified since Oct 23, 1992

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$112,195
Fines, last 3 years
4.45
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 5, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Sep 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (23)

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

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 19, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Feb 19, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to share a room with their spouse or a roommate of their choosing, or moved residents to a different room without written notice beforehand.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 5, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Feb 24, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 24, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 24, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Feb 24, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Feb 24, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Feb 24, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Feb 24, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
Feb 24, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.
Jul 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Apr 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint
Apr 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Mar 1, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.
Mar 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202490F
202591G ▲
202650E

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)

20 fines totaling $112,195.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 20, 2024Fine$4,938
Feb 12, 2024Fine$4,938
Jan 22, 2024Fine$14,814
Jan 8, 2024Fine$4,938
Jan 2, 2024Fine$4,587
Dec 11, 2023Fine$13,762
Nov 20, 2023Fine$4,587
Nov 13, 2023Fine$4,587
Nov 6, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 30, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 23, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 17, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 10, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 2, 2023Fine$4,587
Sep 25, 2023Fine$4,587
Sep 18, 2023Fine$4,587
Sep 11, 2023Fine$4,587
Sep 5, 2023Fine$4,587
Aug 28, 2023Fine$4,587
Aug 21, 2023Fine$4,587

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

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.454.313.95top 31% in California; top 25% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.300.610.69bottom 13% in California; bottom 10% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.273.903.50top 22% in California; top 16% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.290.510.48bottom 31% in California; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)27.636.745.8top 23% in California; top 10% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.07, RN 0.28, weekend 3.91. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Other

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Chowchilla Memorial Healthcare DistrictOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2005
Decker, LelandIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/21/2005
Flores, CathyIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE07/22/1991
Flores, CathyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/21/2005

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Palms Care Center0.1 miChowchilla, CA★★★★☆4/5
Madera Care Center15.7 miMadera, CA★★★★☆4/5
Merced Behavioral Center16.1 miMerced, CA★★★★★5/5
Madera Rehabilitation & Nursing Center16.4 miMadera, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Anberry Post Acute16.9 miMerced, CA★★★☆☆3/5
La Sierra Care Center17.4 miMerced, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Merced Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr17.5 miMerced, CA★★★★☆3/5
Golden Merced Care Center17.6 miMerced, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Franciscan Post-Acute Care Center18.0 miMerced, CA★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Chowchilla →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555530.