How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Community Care Center
8665 La Mesa Blvd., La Mesa, CA 91942 (opens Google Maps) · San Diego County · (619) 465-0702· 119 certified beds · avg 104 residents/day · certified since Feb 8, 1968 · 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: LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 30, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.20
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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 28 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0627
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
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
View all 28 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0627 |
| Apr 30, 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 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · F-0567 |
| Apr 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 30, 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 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 30, 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 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jul 11, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0686 |
| Feb 13, 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 |
| Feb 13, 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 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Feb 4, 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. · from a complaint · F-0758 |
| Feb 4, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 31, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Aug 5, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Feb 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 |
| Feb 29, 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 29, 2024 | 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. · F-0692 |
| Feb 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Feb 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0849 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 11
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 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 8 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 11 | 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: 3.20
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.54
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.92
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) | 3.20 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 3% in California; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 41% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.92 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 3% in California; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 23% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 33.6 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 42% in California; top 21% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 26.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 30% in California; top 24% 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 4.61, RN 0.78, weekend 4.22.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.61 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: 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 Community 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Earl, Steven | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Sanofsky, Jack | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Anderson, Chad | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2024 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2024 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2023 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2023 |
| Deguzman, Myrna | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Deguzman, Myrna | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Links Support Services, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Links Support Services, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Michlin, Bernard | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Michlin, Bernard | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Ramirez, Sharon | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Ramirez, Sharon | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
Showing 20 of 27 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 7 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 Links Healthcare Group — 32 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.
- Creekside Post-Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
- Crystal Creek Post-Acute — Stockton, CA · overall 2/5
- Encinitas Post-Acute — Encinitas, CA · overall 4/5
- Jacob Healthcare Center — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
- Lodi Creek Post Acute — Lodi, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Meadow Creek Post-Acute — Paramount, CA · overall 1/5
- River Pointe Post-Acute — Carmichael, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Riverbank Post-Acute — Riverbank, CA · overall 1/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 31 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.
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How are residents' personal funds handled here, and what records can families review?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Who on your staff manages IV therapy, and what training and monitoring is in place?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
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 34% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 27 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 62 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grossmont Hospital D/P SNF | 0.7 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Grossmont Post Acute Care | 0.8 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Grossmont Gardens Healthcare Center | 0.8 mi | La Mesa, CA | —/5 | ||
| Parkway Hills Nursing & Rehabilitation | 1.2 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Arbor Hills Nursing Center | 1.2 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Brighton Place Spring Valley | 1.4 mi | Spring Valley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Country Manor la Mesa Healthcare Center | 1.5 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Lemon Grove Care and Rehabilitation Center | 1.6 mi | Lemon Grove, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Amaya Springs Health Care Center | 2.1 mi | Spring Valley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| La Mesa Healthcare Center | 2.4 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Bella Vista Health Center | 2.7 mi | Lemon Grove, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Parkside Health and Wellness Center | 2.8 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Diego, CA — 83 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Cottonwood Canyon Healthcare Center — El Cajon, CA · overall 3/5
- Country Hills Post Acute — El Cajon, CA · overall 1/5
- Edgemoor Hospital — Santee, CA · overall 4/5abuse
- Encinitas Post-Acute — Encinitas, CA · overall 4/5
- Escondido Post Acute — Escondido, CA · overall 5/5
- Fallbrook Skilled Nursing — Fallbrook, CA · overall 4/5
- Friendship Manor Nursing & Rehab Center — National City, CA · overall 5/5
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 055873.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).