California ›Redding

Copper Ridge Care Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

201 Hartnell Avenue, Redding, CA 96002 (opens Google Maps) · Shasta County · (530) 222-2273· 125 certified beds · avg 120 residents/day · certified since Sep 6, 1988 · 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: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 5, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Dec 13, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.86
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 · Dec 13, 2024 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.

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: Jan 8, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 16 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. F-0676

  2. 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

  3. 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

View all 16 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Dec 5, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676
Dec 5, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726
Nov 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · from a complaint · F-0694
Dec 13, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Oct 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0755
Sep 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Aug 22, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · from a complaint · F-0553
May 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint · F-0812
May 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff. · from a complaint · F-0840
Feb 17, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 17, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 17, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 2).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202230E
202471G ▲
202560D

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.86
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.41
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.40
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.864.313.95bottom 31% in California; top 46% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.410.610.69bottom 35% in California; bottom 23% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.403.903.50bottom 22% in California; top 47% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.340.510.48bottom 44% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)40.636.745.8bottom 36% in California; top 38% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)27.338.142.9top 31% 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 4.29, RN 0.45, weekend 3.77.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.29 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Copper Ridge 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 - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%08/15/2014
Hudson River Opco LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%12/20/2019
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mantri, DineshIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2007
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Thompson, DarrellIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Thompson, DarrellIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022

All 9 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 Pacs Group — 274 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 273 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

  • "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
  • "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
  • "What adaptive eating equipment do you provide, and how do you decide who needs help at meals?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
  • "Who on your staff manages IV therapy, and what training and monitoring is in place?"
  • "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
  • "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"

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 41% 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 (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
River Valley Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP1.1 miRedding, CA★★★★☆4/5
Crestwood Wellness and Recovery Center1.1 miRedding, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Redding Post Acute1.3 miRedding, CA★★★★☆4/5
Marquis Care at Shasta1.3 miRedding, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Vibra Hospital of Northern California D/P SNF2.4 miRedding, CA★★★★★4/5
Quartz Hill Post Acute2.5 miRedding, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Veterans Home of California - Redding4.4 miRedding, CA★★★★★4/5
Oak River Rehab8.9 miAnderson, CA★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Shasta, CA — 10 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Redding →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555316.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details