CaliforniaRiverside

Community Care on Palm

4768 Palm Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501 · Riverside County · 51 certified beds · avg 48 residents/day · certified since Sep 6, 1997

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$33,540
Fines, last 3 years
4.84
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: 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 · Jun 27, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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: Jul 5, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 27, 2024 · 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: Jul 5, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jan 4, 2024 · 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: Jan 14, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (44)

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
Apr 16, 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 16, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Apr 16, 2026E · 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.
Apr 16, 2026D · 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.
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Apr 16, 2026D · 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.
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Apr 16, 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.
Dec 22, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint
Nov 25, 2025D · 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
Nov 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Apr 11, 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.
Apr 11, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Apr 11, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Apr 11, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Apr 11, 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.
Apr 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Apr 11, 2025D · 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 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows.
Nov 5, 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
Sep 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jun 27, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jun 27, 2024▲ 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
Apr 24, 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. · from a complaint
Mar 14, 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 14, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Mar 14, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Mar 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Mar 14, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Mar 14, 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.
Mar 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Mar 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Mar 14, 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.
Mar 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.
Mar 14, 2024D · 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.
Mar 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Feb 9, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint
Jan 4, 2024▲ 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
Jan 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Jan 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint
Nov 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 9).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202320D
2024223G ▲
2025110E
202690F

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 $33,540.

DateTypeAmount / length
Nov 28, 2023Fine$33,540

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)4.844.313.95top 19% in California; top 16% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.740.610.69top 21% in California; top 32% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.063.903.50top 30% in California; top 21% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.180.510.48bottom 7% in California; bottom 10% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)38.236.745.8bottom 43% in California; top 32% 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 4.54, RN 0.69, weekend 3.81. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bercovich, EzequielIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2021
Bak, AbrahamIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/13/2020
Bercovich, EzequielIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2021
Bercovich, EzequielIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2021
Gastwirth, MenachemIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/13/2020
Jannat, ShahrzadIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2021
Jetti, AnoopIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/17/2023
Jetti, AnoopIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/17/2023
Nguyen, DerekIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Nguyen, DerekIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025

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
Riverside Behavioral Healthcare Center0.2 miRiverside, CA★★★★★4/5
Community Care and Rehabilitation Center1.2 miRiverside, CA★★★☆☆2/5
The Grove Care and Wellness1.3 miRiverside, CA★★★★★4/5
Valencia Gardens Health Care Center1.8 miRiverside, CA★★★★★4/5
Vista Pacifica Center2.7 miJurupa Valley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital2.7 miJurupa Valley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Jurupa Hills Post Acute3.1 miRiverside, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Woodcrest Post Acute & Rehabilitation3.3 miRiverside, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Extended Care Hospital of Riverside3.3 miRiverside, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Mission Care Center3.9 miRiverside, CA★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Riverside →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555711.