CaliforniaSacramento

College Oak Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

4635 College Oak Drive, Sacramento, CA 95841 · Sacramento County · 120 certified beds · avg 115 residents/day · certified since Feb 16, 1970

Part of chain: CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$9,814
Fines, last 3 years
4.27
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Nov 20, 2025 · F-0627 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely.

Why it matters: A rushed or poorly planned move can leave a resident somewhere that can't meet their needs.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Nov 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 9, 2024 · F-0685

The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.

Why it matters: Untreated vision and hearing problems lead to falls, isolation, and confusion that could be avoided.

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: Feb 23, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (25)

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
May 29, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint
Apr 9, 2026F · 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.
Apr 9, 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.
Apr 9, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Apr 9, 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.
Apr 9, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Nov 20, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint
Nov 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint
Feb 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Feb 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 7, 2025E · 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 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Feb 7, 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 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Feb 7, 2025D · 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.
Feb 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint
Aug 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 9, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Feb 9, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Feb 9, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 9, 2024D · 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.
Oct 5, 2023D · 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. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202310D
202461G ▲
2025121J ▲
202660F

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)

1 fine totaling $9,814.

DateTypeAmount / length
Nov 20, 2025Fine$9,814

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)4.274.313.95top 40% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.790.610.69top 17% in California; top 28% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.873.903.50top 41% in California; top 27% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.580.510.48top 24% in California; top 25% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)40.036.745.8bottom 38% in California; top 36% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)47.438.142.9bottom 31% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S.

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 4.33, RN 0.81, weekend 3.92. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Borja, JeanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/21/2019
Borja, JeanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/21/2019
Green-Rastekhiz, EmileeIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/14/2023
Green-Rastekhiz, EmileeIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/14/2023
Hadrick, StephanyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/05/2024
Hadrick, StephanyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/05/2024
Jackson, MatthewIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Jackson, MatthewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/25/2026
Jackson, RobertIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/20/2019
Jackson, RobertIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/25/2026
Khan, AlzeenaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/29/2024
Khan, AlzeenaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/23/2024
McConnell, ChristopherIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/20/2023
McConnell, ChristopherIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/20/2023
Roldan, Mary RoseIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/18/2020
Roldan, Mary RoseIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/18/2020
Sandhu, HarkeshIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/19/2019
Sandhu, HarkeshIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/19/2019
Sanofsky, JackIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Sanofsky, JackIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/25/2026

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
Eskaton Village Care Center0.9 miCarmichael, CA★★★★☆4/5
Sacramento Post-Acute1.1 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
American River Center1.1 miCarmichael, CA★★★★☆4/5
Mission Carmichael Healthcare Center1.4 miCarmichael, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Whitney Oaks Care Center1.4 miCarmichael, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Manzanita Healthcare Center1.4 miCarmichael, CA★★★★★3/5
Mountain Manor Senior Residence2.8 miCarmichael, CA★☆☆☆☆2/5
River Pointe Post-Acute2.9 miCarmichael, CA★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
River City Post Acute2.9 miCarmichael, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Arden Park Post Acute3.8 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Sacramento →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056158.